Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-12-23

ss TO MS aominlsration, and their Repfeeenta>
tutional accountability. HIS orders, therefore,
must be written. Especially is this important
under an act Of The character Of that We have
In these remarks must not Be understood
as expressing any distrust OF the pttrtosism
AID upris htness Of the present Caief Magie-
tIate Of the United States, This very aes OF
Congress contains a noble expression OF the
confidence which his counuymen repoee In ni9
purity and wisdom.
But not on;y Is there no evidence In this case
that the arrest was made under any ''order OF
the President or under his authority but We
have his own proclamation Issued under the
authority Of this act, dated the 18th day OF
the different cases in which he deems it for the
public interest that the writ of haoeas corpus
shall be suspended during the existence Of the
rebellion; aud the ease we have been trying
falls within no one Of these classes.
There is still other and equally conclusive
eNloence TO snow that Ii 10 not the intent ton OF
Coneress to include case like the present, IN
Ger the act OF ID Of March, 1859, which We
nave Deen considering. On the very day, and
before the passage of this act, Congress passed
an act TO prevent ,ha and punish frauds upon the
Government OF the United States, Sec ~, Stat.
u'es at Large, page $50. The first section OF
tins act provides that any persons in the mill
lary and naval service OF the United States
uskirg or presenting fictitious CLAIMS, false
v uchers making false oaths, forging sigma
lures, utteTiDg forged papers, oonspirine to de-
fraud, stealing, or embezzling, contractors,
ing false receipts for arms, &c and m any 9TH
er persons there en- urneratsd belonging 10 tns
military or naval service, lay be tried for
II ese offences by court martial. The I'd and Cd
sections Of this act apply to persons not in the
military or naval service, and provide for their
trial and punishment according to ne law OF
the land In the civil courts OF the United States
and OF the District OF Col olumbia.
Gwynne was suspected OF being guilty OF
one OF the offences named in this act, and pro-
ylded for fully by the act He was a civilian,
nt a ha hal ka Cd 49,
civil courts.
1t is not to be pres umed that on the very next
day after passing this la Congress had SO far
forg often its own consistency as - pass an
other law which authorized his arrest with
out warrant, his confinement in prison with
out commitment, and his trial and pauish-
mant ty court mar ial, or an indefinite I'M
prisonment without allowance trial al all.
The seventh prayer" That the remark
attributed TO the defendant bS Mr. jordan, hat
disproved by Mr.. ChtteBden, viz: mat nd
would make the arrest ON his own RESPONSE
biIity, even If that remark was actually made
by the defendant, would not OF itself revoke or
annul tny authority previously or SUBSEQUENT
ly given either by the Solicitor or by tho Sec
retary OF War or OF the Treasury"-is granted
as prayed
timony in the case the jury believed the ar
rest was made by the authority OF the Pres
idsnt, the defendant must be acquitted lis
granted. eubJected, however. TO the ms trn nctons
which has alresdy been given in ans swer 70 the
sixth prayer of the DEFENDANTS counsel
The ninth is granted THAT " after the ar
rest ot DR.. Gwynne, the Solicitor OF the Treas
u1y accompanied the defendant TO me room
occupied by The prisoner, assisted In ssizing
the papers, and if The Secretary of the Treas
ury. knowing of the arrest, de1 allied officers %
examine and brief the papers seizAd; or il the
saId Solicitor and Secretary otherwise sp.
proved and promoted the in ysstigAt eonss-
quent on the arrest, and while they knew the
prisoner was in custody, the jury may pre-
sume from these facts that the arrest was au-
thorized and approved by these officers"
The tenth Is not granted :-"If the prisoner
as arrested, ard the Secretary Of The Treas
ury or the Solicitor, knowing tue fact, had
auiho,i'y over the subject and did BOT order
his release the jury may presume that the ar
rest was made by their authority"
Tothe eleventh, Offered by Mr.. Utermehie,)-
"That II the jury shall lind from the evidence
in this cause mat the defendant, L. u. Baker,
was in the military service Of the United States,
subject TO the orders Of the Secretary OF War;
that he committed the offence under an order
emapatiLg indirectly from the said Secretary
OF War; that the said Baker had NO right ~
question the loyalty Of such order or authority
by which the same was issued, and he is not
responsible in this action, and the jury must
acQuit'-the Judge says:
THE Court has already instructed you that
in making the arrest in question Baker was
not acting under orders OF any kind from the
Secretary OF War. He reported by permission
OF the Secre tary of War to The Secre-
latter; and from the latter received his orders,
for which orders The Secretary OF War is aot
responsible. The military commission held by
the defendant is a circumstance Of no consid-
Grafton in the present case, either in favor or
against him." AepREw WYLIR
The following prayers offered by the prose-
cution are granted:
.:.f from :he whole evidence Aforesaid ths
Jury shall find that the defendant did on tho
9th Of January. 1854, arrest the said Stuart
Gwynne, in the said Indictment named, fOrci-
bly, and asail st the will of the said Stuart
GWynne, and did hold him in custody until
the 7th day CT January, 1854, then the defen-
dant is guilty OF an assault and battery as
charged.
And il is no justification OF the said assault
and battery, if the jury shall further hud that
having grounds OF suspicion or belief that the
said Stuart GwyEne was attempting to de frand
or had defTauded the Treasur- department In
the execution OF contract with said Depart.
merit he " as then executing. The Secretary OF
the Treasury Instructed the Defendant to maze
the said arrest, without further showing the
express uthority Of the President to the SAID
Secretary to order the said arrest; and ID the
absence of proof OF sneh express authority,
the defendant had no Justification for SAID as-
sault and battery"
The case was then argued by Mr.. Coombs
for the prosecution. who was followed by Mr..
Stanton for the defendant, and District Attor-
uey CaTrin gton clos ed the argument about 3
O'Clock, when the jury took the case.
In ahout Is minutes the jury returned and
through Mr. Jas. l.. Meg GuiIe gave in their
verdict of guilty as indicted.
MI UteTmehle Immediately entered motion
tor a new trial.
against Col l.. Baker for libel and unlawfuily
opening letter, a nols pros. was entered.
u. S. SUPREME Court, December 21.-On mo-
tion CT Dir. Samuel W. Fuller, O0ediah jack
son, Esq, of Illinois, wa admitted an attorney
and counsellor of this Court
No. 60 The Wheeler " Wilson Manufactur-
ing Company, appellant VS.. george III. Cor
liss. Appeal from the Circuit Court OF the
United States tor the district OF Connecticut.
The matters in controversy IN this cause hav-
ing been agreed and settled between the par
ties, it was, on motion OF Mr.. Curtis, ordered
to be dismissed
No. %. VIM. T. Lowher ct al, plaintiffs in
error, VS. Eikannah and Vim. II. Bangs. The
argument Of this cause was contin ued by Mr..
Bartlett for the plaintiffs in error, by Mr..
Shattuck and Mr.. Curtis for the defendants IN
error, and concluded by Mr.. Bartlett for the
plaintiffs in error. r--. 10 E,
No. "a. Stephen s. Tobey, appellant, vs.
Nehemiah Leonard ct al. The argument OF
this cause was commenced by Mr.. Thaxtor for
the appellant Adjourned.
December 22.-On motion OF Mr.. Attorney