New-York daily tribune., 1859-06-02

not enough 10 warrant the case in going to the
Jury-snd without any argument, or summing up,
or in fact. sny commitment Of the case to them,
the, Judge directs the Jury to return verdict oi
acquittaL He does this on the ground that there
was no evidence that the vessel was foreign YES
sell nor vet that she owned by or nsvigsied for
/. citizen or citizens Of the United States; though
if she was not within the one category, she must
have been within the other; and on this ground,
which at best looks very much Ike quibbie, he
declines even to allow the Jury to pass upon the
case.
But is il true that there was no evidence OF the
American ov nership Of the vessel proper for the
consideration Of jury As Townsend was proved
TO be an American citizen, to prove him TO D. the
owner would sufficiently make out this point. He
WAS found in possession of the vessel, and the YES
sci was identified as the brig Putnam registered IN
the New-Orleans Custom-House as belonging TO
him. which registry could only have been obtained
BY means Of an oath that he was the owner, and,
moreover, there was produced from the files OF the
New-Orleans Custom House bill of sale purport-
ing 10 convey the vessel to Townsend, which must
have been deposited there by him. or by the person
who obtained the registry in his name. Now, ad-
hitting that the registry of the vessel IN his name
was not conclusive evidence that Townsend was
the owner; admitting that. in defect OF proof
of the execution of the bill of sale BY the
party making it, that document was not cor
elusive by itself, yet certainly the fact that
the vessel was registered in Tognsend's name,
rat such bill of sale to him was on file in the
New-Orleans Custom House, coupled with the
additional fact that he was on board the vessel, and
80 in possession of her-all these things taken TO-
qether were circumstances from which the Jury
might reasonably have concluded that he was the
owner, and which ought to have been left to their
consideration, in that point of view.
In this case We are able TO set off against Judge
Maryins authority and practice, that OF Judge
Wayne Of the Supreme Court of the United States,
who, on the trial which recently took place before
him of some of the crew of the Echo instead of
rejecting the copy Of the register, and the original
bill Of sale as not admissible in evidence, did actu-
ally allow them to 60 to the Jury. So that if Judge
Marvin was right in his ruling, then Judge Wayne
was wrong. Even apart from the documentary
evidence, and supposing that Judge Marvin was
right in rejecting the register because it was only
copy from the files of the New-Orlesns Custom
House. and the bill of sale for want of sufficient
authentcation, still, apart from these documents,
there was evidence enough of ownership to have
made it proper to allow the Jury to pass upon the
case. As the Journal Of Commerce has quoted for
our enlightenment certain legal authorities, we will
proceed to reciprocate the favor
"Upon an indictment Of for revolt, beld that
the ncrship the vessel determined the national catsef
aud held TO be sufficient evidence Of t,e 70
Court for NJ " $780, quoted in Abbott on shipping edition
a Iii Of sale is the true proper munimeni q ship
and one which the maritime practice Of all nations will look for
and in IN 's Ordinary 1 PI1Sss S S q. II o pe Be-
Jresunrfre eridenee Of title scihout The aid @ doesnssary
p,oof and stand good until that pe'u1pt'on be de,Syed
ty contrary Tro"5 Ken,s Commentaries Is edith ' iS'
The cases in which it has been held that regis
try shall not be taken to prove the ownership, are
cases in which the registry stands alone uncon-
nected with, or perhaps in conflict with, the other
circumstances of the case. The journal OF Com
merce processes to quote from Greeneaf on Evi-
depce. sec. 4OS. We fnd in that section nothing
whatever on the subject, but We do find IN sec.
494 the following:
The register is not Of itself evidence Of ppery eref 90
far 0,%d BY aa6a,y " -. ncfso sama
in IT, and who is sought 10 be charged a- o"nef'
In Townsends case such an auxiliary circum-
stance existed of the very strongest character,
namely, his presence board the ship and his par
tcipation in the voyage in which she was engaged.
Suppose the copy of the registry properly re-
iected. Then the case would have stood upon the
ground of the vessels not havirg any register, a.
none was found on board. That fact would not
have confcted with the suppOsiton OF her being
an American vessel, owned by American citizens
Our laws do not require u registry. She was
American built, and Townsend, an American citi-
zen, was on board, acting captain; and as there
was no proof that she was foreign vessel, these
circumstances were fairly entitled to weigh with
the Jury in making up their minds as to the fact oil
American ownership.
If Judge Marvin was right, if there was no evi-
dence at all in this case fit to be laid before Jury,
upon what ground could the original commitment OF
Townsend be justified and if there was no ey-
idence that the Echo was an American vessel
bow can the judgment of the District Court
of South Carolina be sustained by which she
was condemned as good prze' But the better
the case that can be made out for Judge Mar
win, SO much the more weight is there in our
suggestion of the absolute necessity of revision of
the slave-trade law for the purpose ofreeving such
eminent jurists and - frank, cordial, nobly honest
"men, as the Journal Of Commere describes Judge
Marvin to be, from the necessity Of setting loose
.t. hnu Ia. l.t.
IDENTITY intended TO punish. II the act above quoted