The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-06-25
Argument Of Messrs. Evarts and
Brady for the Defendants.
Reply Of Messrs. A. Oakley Hall and
Judge Parker for tho People.
CIsION REsEK'v WE'D.
DISCHARGE OF TIE GRAND JURY,
No Action on the Suppression Of the
World and Journal Of Commerce,
t., TO-. DO

a., TO-. 10
BEFORE Judge Russell ana Recorder Hoffman.
JuxA c4-Ihis court was crowded this morning BY
members OF the bar aud other citizens hear argu
ment on tho motion 10 the indictments against
Marshal Murray and others from the General Sessions
the United states Circuit Court Mr. Murray repre-
scented BY the follow Ing eminent counse-Messrs. Jas
I. Brady, wm F. Evarts and g. Seward, Of Score
tory Seward. A. Oakley Hall, Esq assisted by hon.
Amasa J. Parker in opposing the motions.
Mr.. Seward inquired 1t was agreeable to The Court to
have the motions and TO quash the indictments
made together.
Mr. Hall stated that far as he concerned he do.
sired TO have both motions argued together.
Judge Russell replied that the questions bad better
b. argued together
Mr. william Evar.s then proceeded to open the argu
mcnt q motion 10 remove the indictments against
Robert Murray and Others found at the May term charg
Ing them with kidnapping Don jose Augustn Argueles
send him out Of the State Of New York. Mr. Eyarts
FIRST point that the application MAIDS under the
provisions Of the fifth section of the act OF Congress-
passed March g. 1863 entitled Dan rotating habens
corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings In certain
cIses" The papers upon which the motion Is made
show the case 10 be w,hn the purvew OF that section
The counsel spoke Of the extraordinary powers which
the existence OF tho rebellion. Hs second point was
that as Ia conceded that the Of the United states
within and conlomed to the authority OF the constitution
OF the United States paramount In all courts and
jursdc,ious the motion must granted uuless the
ton 4 the aes IN question void for rougnsncs TO the
laird tina, such rspugnanoe csis,a, and that tho
act OF Congress Ia vaid Is relates the no.
mcva oil ctvit suit from tho state the United
states Circuit Court has been adjudEed. great
this distrcs n respscuy submitted that the "ne =.
ton within the premises of that decision should not bo
deemed al Omen cue in this court.
Fbaf-Tbe proposition upon which act The in its appi.
cation To- cvi SUITS was upheld IS constitutional by tho
Supreme Court OF this State. was that laid duwu and
always adhered TO By the supreme Court OF the United
Stats in the case OF Oborne the Bank cf United
s,aesl9 Wheat, S2i.l chief Justice Nsrshsl in
ver!ng the opnion o, Court, says -ae pc! ceiye no
ground upon which the pros oslon eau DO msiutalned
that Congress Incapable Of giving the Cheat courts
orgnai Jurisdiction IN any case TO which The appellate
jurisdiction extends"
F.Gh-as the section OF tho act Ia question ia terms
provides Ger the romova or criminal prosecu.,,ns tom
the state TO the United atei caarts The MY question H.
whether such provision il within tie authority the con
snon OF the United states But ne sdjuiicati,n
81 the supreme Co 81 the utd states the answer to
that question is 60 be sought in the ques
on whether criminal pro ecut'ons in the state courts,
within the parvicT of this section OF the 1857
subject TO the appellate jurisdiction Q! the iedera
Judiciary.
OF guilty or not guilty turns upon authority right in
Justification, under law in tbs constitutions or inc
Unitod states, are within the appellate Jurisdlcton
cannot Do Counted, either upon reason or Authority
l Nothing can be more al variance with the para.
that it should 6e possible that a man should be pun
ished BY q state Court as criminal for act
l0iue1 Darnitfef or justified duty a yjln.
uader The laws constitution OF the United States 10
guard against this possibility the appellate jurisdiction
OF the federal Judiciary requisite, and has been cstso
shed 2 The exercise OF this appellate Jurisdiction Is
familiar, snd its eonstuouallty has never been jud
cisiy doubted or discreditcd.
SsnHh,-hs, then, u cannot be doubted that writ OF
errer Will lie e rsysy before the cour, of The
United Stsses the bnsi, Judgment Ok tho highest c6Ift IN
this State IN the case in which tue application s
nade, SO il established by the dc, sion Of tie para
mount tribunal that original jurisdiction may be confer
red by cougress In the Circuit Court in such case.
BY the act Of Congress OF March g. 1868 uriaulc
ton has been conferred United States Circuit
courts, and the and effect Of transfer TO their
iurisdctls3 provided.
Mr. A. Oakley Hail. the District Attorney on behalf OF
the people, responded in able aud learned argument
subjoned are he points which we're submitted TO aud
gued before ihe Court, not, however, sYia, Mr. Hall
following The argument Of Mr. Evars in the order he pre-
scented it,
BRIEF OF ARGUMENT ron PEOPLE.
The People Of ne So Of Eeu Tor, r. Ro,en M,ryoy and
ohersfhe defendant, who s United States Marshal has
been indicted for the orcibe seizure aud confinement Of
statutes Of the state New YORK and s not against any
federal statute. motion made remove the indici
Court trial. and the application is based upon section
chapter ST. OF the laws OF the Thirty seventh Congress
t&srch, 1882 The supposed applicable provisions
s.c And ;: II further enacted. rh., Il any sat or
nsnced IN any stAe couI, ALsinst officer civil m.
o. any s9 FOR se 2.
mea or any ssi omitted 70 be done q any time ariax
Y derived from Or e.src.sa By under The rr.asa
the I'm TED states OF Congress defend
court Or u such appearances shall have been before
ir passage or ths ACT then al The
in which such sut prosecution 10 pending die petition,
stating the fss and VARIED BY AFFIDAVIT Tor the removal VI
The for ttis A the Circuit Cont OF IA, United
states 10 be holden tbe district IL pendin
and cner GOOD sud SUB lent surety for his nng
court on the lrst day a. s OF such
ng uoh court aud entsrng special bail Ia The cause n
special all wa org nsy inred therein u shsl shen be
he du OF the Sta court 70 acept tie surely and proceed
no further in the cause prosecution. and tho tA that
shall have becn originally taken shall be discharged And
ch copies being lcd, aforesaid! IL such court Of tie
United states the cause snail proceed therein In the
manner as had been hroaahl IN said corrt BY gna
iauases claimed whatever the citizenship of tne parties
my former aw 10 the Conway novitfstandins.
rofsn.
tirs--1hs motion can be granted only through an
constitutional application Of the foregoing provisions.
! II the prayer Of the petitioner should he yr.nted
tate will originally stand In the United states Cicn
Joult ~ painth, with one Of Ter own ctizens ~ oe
Audant.
such primary status Of particle either 10 cv or
riuinal controversy, beyond The Juaieai nr"acoh
uauted by the federal constitution.
Tho constitutional test IN an application 70
ontYoversy from state 20 federal cours s1o conlsr
lpou the latter original jurisdiction, is coulu wy
rersy removed bave boon originally oommsncX 70 the
after tribunar TCurtis' Commentaries oe a,
cc. las; tonking's Treatise OF the o!Rsn,ho JnIs-
icsIon and Practice Of the United states Courts, ID ed
tx us refer 10 the constitutional provhcns Article
section 4, 70 ~ follows =, 80.
Ihs ius,si power shsii extend e ~ case; x Az ,nd
stses asa rsatas made which shall be made, under
sr Ia I'll Affecting AmbaasadorA other
minnie ministers consuls TO al cases OF admiralty nno
ArnA iurlsAicsos, 70 controversies V whoA We Vsss