New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-24

in the United States 10 DO tried in, bctook himself
tbither. An application was presently msie to
Judge Magratb, by the u. 8. District Attorney for
Georgia, for warrant Of arrest against Corrie, on
the capital charge Of violating the act Of 1920, by
landing on the COST Of Georgia certain negroes
vybom he had received on board his vessel on
foreign shore with the intent to make them slaves.
JUDGE Masrstb, on the ground that, Capt Corre
beipu 4" found" within his district, that was the
proper place to try him, refused this warrant and,
instead of sending Corrie to Georgia, held him to
bail to appear at the next term OF the Circuit Court
for the District of South Carolina. Before that
time came round, true bill was found in Georgia
AGAINST Corrie. under the act Of 1920, upon the
same charge upon which the warrant OF arrest had
been asked; and on the strength OF this new pro-
csedipe. Judge Magrath was again asked to give
him M for trial Again he refused, on the ground
of bis being already bound over to answer 70
the Circuit Court for the District Of South Carolina
for the same o6ense
Not long after, another application was made 70
Judge Magrath to give up Corrie for trial upon
another Indictment found under the act OF 1915,
for tie inferior oense of being concerned 10 asng
out vessel for the slave-trade. Judge Masrah
could not deny that here at least was case In
which the Gesrgis Court had Jurisdiction; but he
again refused the application, on the ground that ne
was holding Corrie for trial on another and moro
serious charge He had also, he says, another rea.
son. though at the time he did not fit to give it.
He looked upon this second indictment as Trick
for getting possession of Corre for the purpose OF
trying him upon this charge of piracy, as to which
the Judge OWNED that Core could only be sned In
South Carolina, where he was first found"
When finally, under strong charge from Judge
WAYNE, the case Of COrrie was submitted 70
Grand Jury of the Circuit Court Of the United
States for the District Of South Carolina az hrst
the Jury refused to find any bill; but upon the Sug-
pestion probably that be would now be passed over
to the Georgia Count and that it would be safest 10
indict him, and go give him the benefit OF South
Carolina Petit Jury, they asked for the papers
back again. This Judge Wayne refused, on
the ground that the Grand Jury had already dis
posed of the case but notwithstanding this refdsal
they shortly after returned an indictment against
Corrie, upon which Magrath again admitted him
TO bail The trial of this Indictment was delayed
from time to time, TILL at the presen. time, Judge
Wayne being in attendance upon the supreme
Court at Washington, it comes on for trial before
Judge Magrath, sitting alone. The Dlstrict-Attor.
new, acting az he states, under instructions frsm
Washington, moved for liberty to enter noue
prosequi the object being to get Corrie transferred
TO Georgia to be tried under the Indictment against
him founded on the act of 1918; but, as Judge
Magrath sill thinks, in fact to try him for piracy
under the act of 1920.
The Judge admits that, as general thing, al
though the consent of the Court to the entry OF 9
nole prosequ must be asked, yet that it is ordina'
Iily granted as matter of course and that in prose-
cutons affecting the public tranquility or foreign
relations, instructions from the President to the
District Attorney ought to be conclusive with the
Court But he denies the right of the President to
interfere in this way to settle question jursdlc-
tion and for the purpose of transferring the trial
from South Carolina 10 Georgia; and on that ground
he still holds to Capt. Corre, and refuses to al
low the noe prosequ to be entered. Not only this,
be proceeds TO put forth new Interpretation OF the
act of 1920, under which, should he be tried, the
Jury might acquit him without exposing themselves
TO the imputation of violation of their oaths.
According to this new exposition of the act, which
is quite ingenious and elaborate, it does not at all
touch the case of buying slaves on the coast OF
Africa or elsewhere and bringing them to this or
any other country. That may be prohibited under
other acts and by lesser penalties but that is not the
proceeding whichthe act of 1920 declares to be plra
cy. That offense, according to Judge Magraths ex-
position is limited to the case of seizng free negroes
by fraud and force on the coast of Africa, and
bringing them off with the intent to make slaves Of
them. But if they ars slave, already, that, says
Judge Magrath, is an entirely different case. He
admits that, according to the reports OF what was
said in Congress when the provisions referred to
were enacted their intention and operation were
understood to be to punish with death those directly
concerned in the transport of negroes from Africa
to be held slaves but he insists that the act must
be construed by reference to its own words
though he himself goes considerably into comempO-
raneOus history to give color to his exposition OF
it-and that these terms only cover the case of the
kidnapping of free negroes and not at all the case
of bona depurchase in the African slave markets
We trust that, when Senator Wilson's new slave
trading bill comes up, care will be taken to make
the provisions on this subject so clear that even
judicial ingenuity cannot wrest it from its true
meaning.