The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-07-07
THE CASE OF AHGUELLES.

Opinions of Judge Russell and Recorder
HoNman-Tns Motion TO Remove ths
Indictments Against Marshal Murray
and Others 20 the United States Circuit
Court Denied--An Application To Quash
the Indictments to be Argued next
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF tho Grand
Jury, &c., sc.
july 6.At the opening Of the Court this morning the
attendance large, the announcement having been
made that decision would be rendered tins morning
the motion made mouth to the indictment OF
Marshal Murray and others for kidnapping Argueles
the United States circuit Court. Attorney General
Cochrsne Judge Parker Mr. Jas. 7. Brady and District
Attorney Hall present.
Judge Russell sad-ln this of the People against
Murray have prepared decisions his Honor then
proceeded TO dsiivcr the following opinion
JUDGE EUssEL's OPINION.
The People u. Rcbcn Murray and othes 1t was not
controveried tho argument that the indict
mcuts against the defendants were Tor acts claim
ed to be violation OF criminal stainte OF
tons OF the laws of this State the defendants had
rlitled proceeded from obedience order tho Pss
Congress OF March g. 1885, they werc NOT responsible %
the tribunals OF this state. The motion made on The
part Of the defendants was for on order OF this Court
sending the indictment the Circuit Court OF The
United states this dstric,n pursuance & section Eve
that act The question is s tns Court bound ought
IL TO grant such melton AZ Il ~ hlnsh would seem
strange o. this bad the ght 10
take cngnizance OF offences against It's laws without re
ference 10 the social, political, o'.cial other
standing the parties charged They certainly The
appropriate trbrnsis 10 entsrtan such jurisec
ton The state make It's own laws, and It's courts
should that they creed " justice s supposed
be administered without erence 10 position or com
piern any other e1trHneous consideration the de
fendauts u is fair 10 presume, VIII be treated other
citizens cnied 10 the RIGHTS, and subject TO the
same lersi accountability Without discussing The ques
sion soveFegny 1t Is not improper 70 refer to the
instances allowing this state has been considered
csuabo OF importantly 20 all and proving that IL has
-fxf-s
owr laws Ono Is the celebrsied Of the People vs.
Crosge 10 Johns cNcs, S3dl, where the defendant
was indicted add committed for libel upon fresi.
dent Jefferson, IN newspaper plosned IN the city OF
hudson this state. The other Is tho familiar OF
the eops ~ Mcleod q Hn,, ~ where tns supreme
Bronson and Gwen j. j. reminded the defendant upon
habeas corpus for trial upon IN Indictment ior murder
though the act charged upon him had been adopted by
the British government (o which he was slbsc ana
had become the subject Of diplomacy between thu, gov
ard own. II, Notwithstanding these pre-
ceents Congress had the to take the uris
dicon OF this Court tho present case and confer
upon the Circuit Court Of the United states and has done
so this Court would readily yield It's cbedisnce 10 such
a law. On the argument OF the preseat motion the
prosecution discussed two pointetirst to tire
s,iu,ouai,y Of the act Of March g. 1893 aud second
whether. even u Congress could constituIionay
enact such law, the hw as enacted was 30 framed
or yorded TO amount u q constitutional
else 81 its power. Whatever may be my views
upon the first point presented, do not deem IL
cidss with the views Of the prosecution 10 the
second point urged Assuming that tho act ~ drawn
Try the present Indictment ~ not easily seen whore
that court would get the power 10 punsn In case Of con
victon who the event OF conviction aDd sentence,
would have the right 10 pardon II We suppose that The
present prosecution could be transferred 70 the federal
courts and could he directed TO DO there continued with
the effect Il regularly proceeded in the courts
Of this state that does not obvste the present difficulty
me roabe Congress has net so said Though the nfih
section these words-"Tbat " any suit or
prosecution civil criminal has been or shall be com
msnoed in any state cour,, &c when comes to pro.
vide Tor tho powers OF Circuit Court over he matters
removed 20 T. applicable solely 70 civil pro-
csednga The provision 10 NJ foows-"And such copies
s.-sus sne removal in the court original jursdcion)
being ed aforesaid IN such court OF The United states
the shall procscd therein IN the same manner -
n had been brought court by original process,
whatever be the amount In dispute or the damages
claimed whatever the citizenship Of the parties any
former law 70 contrary potwithstanding" All The
expressions in such A. are used 70 do
sirnate civil proceeding Criminal proceedioes are not
commenced by original process, does the amount In
dispute, nor DO The damages claimed. nor docs The c
yepsbp the parties Al oil affect them Civil proceed
jnps are affected pv such matters. granted that,
in the outset Of section Ave Congress meant transfer
criminal we'll civil proceedings to the federal courts
~ the cases named has only accom- me ~ a'tn
dctmsnt transferred 30 the Circuit court the power 70
try given; aud even " IS expressly or I'm.
pedy the pow punish certainly not given and that
ower cannot be exercised by implication. 10 this be the
correct Interpretation OF this act TO transfer criminal
prosecution under Us provisions to the federal court
/ would be 10 terminate H. A guilty party could mol DO
| tried, or, " tried and convicted, could not DO
punished Such Law must be unconstitutional Tue
principle by which this act Of Congress be construed
is severe one No court Of comy Jurisdiction TO
be intefcred with assertion Of its authority, un-
less tho legislative power has said IN law vnldly
passed ard ccuched psn insllShle and IMAM oguous
language. Under The Judiciary act OF september "a
1859 q statutes at Large 70; section II, p pl pro
made for the removal o certain cN action.
commenced Va the State Into the Circuit Courts Of
the United States and tho formula by which that was 10
be carefully prescribed. In this State IN Red
moud Russell az Johns r. ib3 u ives bold as early -
1878 mat this provision OF the Judiciary act q l1ss
| must ana would be strictly sihered 70 ans
| observed. tha, tho one set Of courts corlt
no, lose could the other set acquire Jurisdiction but
In the mode prescribed. See Also Coukl,aas Trea
tse I'D ed tI3. ia, 476 &So,. she supreme court
the tnitcd tsies have ALSO held that cause 70 I'm
properv removed Z, cult Court u In its duty re