The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-01-22

State rights"
The Case OF the Slave Yacht Wanderer.
from the Charleston Mercury, JAM IL.
Judge Masrath presiding. The Court met at eleven
Of the Unitsd States vs. Capt VIM G. COrre Of the Wan
derer. will be that the Judge has refused 10
Capt Corre over 70 the Jurisdiction Of the United States
Court In Georgia. but grants the order for his arrest and
orders that his trial take place within the limits Of the
| Jurisdiction wherein he Is arrested:
UNITED STATES COuRT-DE5TIuCT or SOUTH CAROLINA
The Unsted States WslliaSs G. Obrre-Opinios and
Order By Magydth JAN II, 1869-An affidavit Of Nj
Ganah Attorney the United States for the District
OF Georgia. has been presented by Mr. Conner the Ator
ney Of the United States for the District Of South Caro-
hna, and upon order has been asked that warrant
shall issue for the arrest Of William Corrie, charged
with an offence against the laws Of the United States and
upon his arrest for order directing his removal to the
Of the removal Of the party when arrested TO Georgia.
are distinct In themselves and will be 80 considered The
affidavit may make out case for the arrest OF the nc
cused, and arrested for his trial in this district So
no order be made for his removal to and trial IN an
other dsrict The purpose Of the act under which the
accused charged not that there should be more places
than which he may be tried but ~ ascertain one
place only in which he can be tried
To ascertain that place. the affords plain and posi-
tive test ID declares that party shall tried
before the Circuit Court OF the United States for the dis
trst IN which ne may pc osougns or "
found express the difference in the manner in which the
Of the accused in the district has been produced
"Bsought applicable to his involuntary presence
when by capture he is introduced within the limits Of
district Found" signhes the operation Of legal
because he may have been in other districts that these
either of them he has been in the of the
found unless in one Of them he may, by process Of law,
have been arrested. To be found" in district be
there apprehnded or arrested And in whatever district
he has been thus ound, in the Circuit Court Of that dis
trict he must be tried
The Of 1920 does not the act Of Both APRIL 1900,
declare that the district which the accused Is brought
trial. nrst district may brought
But satisfied that under the of 1926, the
construction will be that which understands the term
"hst as prefxed precisely as in the act Of 1890 And
yha If nf
strucon given "found - in the act Of 1920
rect In the act Of 1890 provision made for the trial Of
the accused in the district in which he may "6rst be
brought or "apprehended IL seems TO me quite clear
that apprehended, in the act OF $780, and 'foundn in
the act Of 1870 are convertible terms and that broug
in the act Of 1920 rst be brought expressed
in the act Of 1890.
By the act 3D. March, 1926. sec. IA a Stat u S. lls,
it is declared that "the trial Of all offences which may be
committed upon the high elsewhere, out of the
limits of any State district, shall be in the district
where the offender apprehended into which he may
be FIRST Brought The Constitution of the United States
art provides that the trial OF crimes, except
in cases of impeachment, shall be by ury and such trial
shall be held the State where the said crimes have
been committed; but when not committed within any
State the trial shall be at such place places the Con
gress may by law have directed And the act OF 1890,
already referred to, provided that the trial OF crimes
committed the high seas, or in any place out of the
jurisdiction Of particular State, shall be in the district
where the offender apprehendcd, into which he may
first be brought" Il Stat u. S. 49, crime, there
FORE committed against the laws of the Unied States out
of the limits Of State is not local. but may be tried at
such place by law shall be designated ~. s. Daw
10 How r. 467) The sixth article Of the amendments
TO the constitution is in terms confined to crimes COM
mted within the limits of q State or district
does not appear that the act Of 1920 contemplated the
commission of what prohibited within the limits Of
particular state Otherwise the same exception would
have been introduced which found the acts Of 1870
and 1929. But whether case mas arisen no. ooaem
provisions Of the act must be subordinate TO the consu
ton and therefore, it, in this case, the crime has been
committed within the limits Of State, is there that the
trial shall be had and in such the jurisdiction given
by the Of 1926 and arising from his being brought
found in district, would be imperative.
But that the consistency of the provisions
of the act Of 1920 In asceranng the place at which the
ton of them to be found in the fact that the offence
therein prohibited cannot be said TO be committed within
the limits Of State. And OF all the modes in which
incur the penalties Of the act of 1920 but two
be in any considered as connected with the
shores of the United States and, therefore, within the
limits of any State; and these are TO land deliver
on shore from board of any such ship vessel any
such negro muatto with intent to make sale Of or
having previously sold . such pegS So or muSo as
ton of this ofencep How far, in being connected with
and part Of the slave trade in which such ship or vessel
has been engaged and which, of course must be Out Of
the limits Of State, be said to be committed within
the limits of State, need not be discussed decided as
this the offence with which the accused Is charged
in the affidavit in this case In the affidavit far It.
relates landing the accused charged with having
in the southern district of Georgia. landed from the vessel
called the Wanderer certain negroes muatoes not held
service labor by the laws of either of the States
Territories Of the United States, wh intent to make such
negro negroes mulattO muattoes slave slaves
1t will be that the purpose Of the landing disclosed
by the adavt is not the purpose which, in connection
with the landing contributes make the offence prohibit
by the Of 1890 But the affidavit also charges the
accused with having foreign coast and with all the
circumstances detailed in the fourth section Of the ACT
seized, decoyed, and forcby brought carried and
ceived board the vessel csIed the Wanderer the
negroes charged having been landed in Georgia In
these charges undoubtedly TO be found, proved,
offences against the law Of the United States But these
cannot be said to have been committed within the limits
ans as on 1y s
The crime therefore, If committed, has been commit
ted without the limits of State, and is not local, but
| may be tried where the law desgnates 10 How. X.
46 and the act of 1920 has designated the place where
the offender shall be brought found The place Says
Mr. Sergean where the accused is brought found is
substituted for the place in which the offence was COM
mitted, and has jurisdiction (Com. law 248). The ai-
davt in this does not alege that the accused has
been brought nto been found In the District of
Georgia There is, them jurisdiction which can be
exercised the accused in the Of the United
States for Georgia. because the offence with which he is
charged not committed within the limits Of that State,
and because the offence not being local. it is not alleged
lhe authority therefore, given by the act Of - Septem
Der, 1885, sec. SO STAT u 8 81 to commit I'D remove
| the accused, cannot be exercised in this case
But the removal of the accused TO Georgia cannot be
ordered only because Of the fact that the Courts of the
United States for Georgia have not obtained Jurisdiction
him. because arrested in the District Of South Ca
rona he be removed elsewhere but must be tried
here have already said that where offences against thu
United States are local. committed within the limits of
State in that State the constitution has declared the trial
shall be had And where the offence not local. not within
the limits Of State, the offence shall be tried wherever
|
1920 with violation of which the accused is charged,
provides that he shall be tried in the district wherever
he is brought found In DISTRICT does appear, has
the accused been brought but In this district the motion
for his arrest must presume that he Gao be found And
so found by the terms Of the act the jurisdiction Of the
courts Of the United States in this district become con-
plee, and in being so, exclusive. If tribunal for the
trial Of the offence wherever IL may have been commit
ted, has been provided by Congress- and at the place
where the prisoners seized there existed such q
tribunal, such tribunal has jurisdiction and the accused
cannot be transported to different district for trial.
| Sergeant Com. Law, 248)
Is proper therefore, that only much Of the order
which has been proposed shall be granted as relates To
| the arrest Anu that Is now 80 ordered.
| JANUARY IL, 1850 A. G. MAGRATH.
At the conclusion Of the Judges decision the case Of
the United States Capt H. Lobby and r. Spencer
called The District Attorney stated that the prosecutor
in the case had disappeared and he could not therefore,
go to the jury A. IT, Brown, ESQ.,, counsel for the DO
iendants said that as the prosecutor seemed unwilling
appear he moved Tor the discharge of defendants upon
their own recognzinccs. No objection being made by
District Attorney II was ordered The petit juries
were then dismissed from further attendance until the
first Monday IN March next, at eleven O'Clock.