New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-07
nd warranted By The sOveeisnsv OF tbS United
States. it could co, be imscsed On this pf sssH.
Tts District -Attorney rspisd. BE Woald aot dis

4
ca., the prOFriety Of the ,- Toe question 10 BE- de-
tei,rir,d what /. the .aw No, whether good ~
bad, wise or foolish but Whist says the sts'ue' Ne
imagined that his Honor would no. 20 behind
law to irqui'e into lie proprs.y mster hos reps-
,:vc 10 bis Honor's feelings. As 10 its Frsc;ie no
would admit, he had rot previously insisted on the
lsy but i va, because he you'd frankly confess he
vas TO, sWsYe q the eIs:erce q tie law q: thn
tine Tnis rule was frequently prso-;cei hers, aai
| resorted 70 in May cases where his c,l-.gue Mr..
CArnse' had been counsel Tire devis'ou. we're
,her e1csp ions thsa otherwise Il yesJrted 10 in
the case o. Edwards, and it WEI the prsc,:os 81
| ate Di,uc,.Atoiney and hs predecessors to e.
Ire law Previous TO the yeer E75 the l.
! Maryland required q .Esehold Gualsacs,icc, b.
the. tine the freehold lusi6caticn was dispeass~
-tn \, fsr as Ire Proyi-Sisl Court wss oorosrneS.
Tie az Of October, IN ss.eoded tho provisions OF
the exut.rg Jag, ard spp,rd them 70 tie Coanty
Ccur.s. 7sshing eigh. hundred dollars worth u pro-
petty Necessary for the qualification Of iator Tas
gentleman says this is old statute OF ors hundred
ysars ago. II may be better or worss ioT that It ~as
instituted sboGt the tune Of the Declaration 81 Indie
| peLeeDce, when Il might DO e,pposed Our isthoss
kew wratwsJ in accordance witt the rights of msh.
In 1901 Congress spilled to thu District Of @olunb's
tie laws of Maryland teen in for,e. Did
I
| Ststes and not of Maryland 1t was pre-
| cizsy "a IL Congress had taken mp these lass and
| enacted them "issssimis verbs" Tie then w.s Q
statute Of the United Stst-s, prescribing the qaahsus-
| tion of iurors-sni berg So it Ess the Law Of shs
land and the law Of tins case. 1, sufficient foe
BIN that tie public prosecutor should kr'St VS. the
| law and .tsrd upon IT, because it was .he law. no
| suew of nothing that would justify him IN depNsrs
nom tina, Guie But, say the gentlemen sr the otaer
SIDE if Ma,ylsrd fiji to change her etter bsaaS
adopted BY the United SsteS, corresponding caango
should BE effected here; that should icok-not to
Coogr.ss but to the Legislature of Maryland for tbs
laos 60 govern u.s. The argument carried en- a5'ardify
On its face The gentleman argued that the law re-
quirej property 70 be held IN the sste OF haTyiand
ord not IN the Dssict of Coumbis, and that teoaxh
! the law was adopted here is does not spply to the
| District. All tie statutes of Maryland tpat extended
over the Dst'ict used le phrase, in this state"
ard vet il had swsys been held that that phrase ap'
piled equally TO this District. How were they entiasd
IN this Dntrict 10 the benefits of common lawl Solely
throus their connection with the State ct Maryland,
not through their connection with the United states.
If il was not through the State of Maryland they had
DO common law at all and the prisoner had better DO
discharged al once. The very authority cited ~
the other side the scl OF Congress OF 80, setsd this
II III
declared thst the provisions of the common lew, On
modified by the statutes of Maryland, should continue
10 be the rule of law in regard TO Jurors in the District
/ of Columbia.
District AttorDey-Sireo lsik r.I .If.-1
Mr. Stanton-We have It then declared by Z, gseeo-
man who bss been prsctcUg law hers tot fess Jessr
who is the District Attorney of the District Of ,auns
bis, and whose appointment has beeu ratified sy tho
I -. Ia. alsf
cation was peceessiy Ifthat 30. where has s~ Law
been Buried for one hundred yesrs and dug up Tor
the prosecution Of Daniel f. siches. Who brougn'it
to bis notice He says hs COLLEAGUES had tried esss
in which he had seen the rule enforced. Then, IL ~
had not been 70 associated Mr. Siokles would hsvs
been tried by mao with heart In his breast, Dx
with money in bis pocket The practice Of the Count
is the law of the Court sud If Il ,ay deeply hidden
that mar prac.icog in IL 6fteen pears did not knov
there was such la t he bad TO srraign Sir SckssI
it not the pra,tcs OF the Court and not the swoS
tho Court.
The Judge-You had better understand .ss practice
about this law 1t has been enforced here very oftsa-
TIE District At orDsy may waive i II be plessss
know ve,y well ttat the late Mr. sSendsl, District
Attorney ussd ak the question. Sometimes Mr.. Ksy
did, and sometimes he did not.
Mr.. Stanton-That is preci-ey the point Of view in.
which proposed to dfcuss w. tbese obi sctoos alluded
to were sporadic exceptional cases. Tho qssetinA
arises whether the ral- sought To be applied BY tho
DsIict-AttcrDey for tho first time "a ths law cf tho
land whether Il DOT merely acqniesced in, never
having any e. Foundation IN tho statutes OF tbs land.
It is urged here as the practice Of tho CoWt
but to make tpet practice law, it must be Uniform.
Then as 10 the express statute, how stands Il Tho
act Of M was merely directory statute It directed
the Sheriff 10 ummon having freehold property,
but provided thst that should be Of CD snc.
lie stood not here the ground tha. the lac Of tho
State Of Mary land hsd changed, and DID not now re-
quiIe the property justification, but on the ground
that that law never did apply to this District. He
was satisfied that cnnte Dpls;ed by act Of
Congress rnsks the laws to the property ~ sdca
ton OF jurors applicable IN TIE District because then
they would haze the pensl act Of Maryland operating
in ore county, ard the act Of Virginia operating N
ar other county. What was tse common Law in this
District II was the common lay Of England, -
incorporated into and made pat Ct the lac Of tho
District In tia. common Law there was no such
property quafc on to the found.
Joseph Wright having been sslsd and besing
answered several prebn mary questions, the District
Attorney ssksd him if he was worth $500 he had .
right 70 put that austion. II VAS objected TO by the
defendants counse, and argued. Tne County Of
Washington part Of the s,sto 81 Maryland, Th~
laws o. Maryland extended % the Di-tre4 by the
act Ct Feb -, 1901, and are ~ much psrf OF The
laws sf the District where not Aar ged by at Of CO
gress as If Coz gres had enacted the several lave In
50 many words II this p,rtica, provision Of the sc
OF Karyiend Of III mas 10. bssn uniomly prao.osd