New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-07-08
TIE ARGUELLEs CASE.
0piEson OF Recorder Holman and Judge
Rssseii. Denying Metisn 80 Remove
Indictment against Marshal murr1J
IN Federal Courts.
CoURr OF GISERAL sEasI0Ss Jaly 8. 10

COURT or GESERAL SEssIOSs Jely 8. le6a
CITY judge Russell and Recorder Hoffman
rendered decisions this morning. tho application
of Marshal Murrey ard others, to have their case
tret derred to the Uniloi States Court
James 7. Brady, esQ. appeared for Marshd Murray
aud Dstfict-Afopey Ian and Assistant Attorney
'e,evar, for tie prosecution
The motion 10 transfer was denied
Jsdee Brady said tho defendants would now make o
nosion 10 have the Indictment qusshed' lie had con-
oalfed the Dstrict.Attcruey who Informed him that
setnrdav morning would be convenient time TO argue
Jsdce RossOli then appointed. Saturday next at 10
1cocS the time for bearing argument 70 quafh the
Indictment
Recorder HoryxAxThs People Of she STATE Of New York
"a ted By the Grand July 10 and fo The City sni County
kYO gL Ss oreO Sc, esse s9d . 6 q S ak
fdsnts but asdsf ihr provisions Of seeon Of chapter 81
q the Laws Of the XXXvib Congress they have presented
one BY order Of the Prrdent Ct shs United States. ssk
g for that that the Indictment nsy be removed nom
td Court 10 tbv United States Circuit Court Tor trial
Section. Of Coues. referred 70 provides 'hs' any
order Of the President under bic authority nade e sny
cefuse in all Courts TO any action or Po,es,ort nm, n
criminal Tor any seIes s'rsie sI.s, % ~ SoSe nSSs,
gnd by virtue OF such order and that spch defense nay
ton Of under which hii application Is made is %
foao,y.: al. ....,.s 7b.,,, .rv ,,t, q,
prcsecaou' civil TERMINAL has been shall be com
sneed IN any s,sse coar sgsins any onicer civil or mill
cary or exHnst person imprison
sde other trspsse. % wropg' done o. CON.
pen Rebellion BY virtue or unds, color Of any Authority
derived from exercised by under to President Of the
SDs oserns his sppeersnce IN such Court If ssch
peasnee shall hive been the passage sct
then the session Of tbs court in which sneh su OF
prosecution Is pending &c petition, s's;ns The iscs and
ser6ed by sdsvii for the removal 81 the caue i9f TIA
nj Inc At
So the di.sro where the suit Il pedlns and 3l gooa s
fs session copies such process and other proceedings
against bim and for Ids appearing In such court
s-s oisina, reaaireJ therein Il shall then be the
duty Of ths State oourt 70 seept the .Sre snd Psoce d
have been originally shall BE- discharged And such
Ss a. c.i.e shall prooeed thsren in the
H had been brought IN sae court by ornS process Whist
haever the citizenship u the parties any former law to the
not sc@ discuss the character Of this remarkable
isE'aton A, the prop time aud in the Propsi pS2e y
G merit. The question Of It's constuonsiy except far
affects the question Of the transfer Of iee lndle' 20
ed shall not eIonne here any question but me one AZ
issue Upon Argument Of the motion the counsel for The
asehdant that II he indictment should BE- removed
@ sSe United State. Chcu Court and Trial should be there
bad followed by conviction ths' tne 19ae ., we Of
che State Of NewYork suffer the punishment prescribed
BY those lave aud that the power TO PARDON ess Al 'e
Tthese assertions wrr, wei founded should have the
srsnre picture presented Of United States Judge administer
fpr the penal Of the State Of Newiok nnd the Pfes
dem In ted States extending pardon TO one convicted
crime thst state which had been com
p,tted by lis order Such result would seem 70 be
ore appropriate 70 an act snea All S 70 o,sr y
Che President Of the United states.
But these assertions If counsel not wei founded
There no authority for saying that Judge Of United
State. Count could criminal in pursuance Of the
laws Of State Judges have Power except such
conferred them By the avs 81 tie United States
pever conferred upon them the power TO pass sny sent nee
upon criminal otsndef against me law o. se o
effect had 6een made before because u i no
Of the Unted would called upon to try offenders
sssinst the eraius laws Of STATE; aud 10 d,es,.,
Chs. the act eOpaned Of was done BY he order o. the
b convicted Judgment motion could follow that con
sktiOu.
fded to The offender Tho President Of the United States
could no; pardon COZ the that the oense is
SnIied states Section Of Article o. the Constitution Of
che United States upon the President the power 70
pardon and rePeve only tor ohenses against the United
That Il did not confer upon tho President the power par
United States Court l. perhaps good argument to show hai
offender sgans the laws Of STATE should 10 inca IN the
The ovsmor Of the State of NewYork could not pardon
because power under the Constitution of tho sse clearly
ststes only Of conviction in the Courts Of the State
II q very clear tho trainers OF that Constitution never
contemplated that any ollie Courts would DO clothed With
Again. sectioS Of iis scs Of Congress sboyr mentioned
sode tba am snl or persecution described IN IN
which anal Judgment may DO ead. red IN tne 1cg court
may be CARRIED by wit q euo 70 The suPes' Court What
sSis Section sho,s that & relss only civil o. pro
sedng srd ne. to criminal. sad 1t Is the only PROVISION on
Now N il well settled that the Judgments Of The United
States Circuit Courts In criminal cases are hnal and lie 81
pfcme Court possesses NO appellate jpisdcnoa Ia '1'n
T. s ose Moor craneh lss, Parte Aearney l. whea
is only In cases whre the Circuit judges are eV1ded IN
opinion that the can DO brought before Tho Supreme
<sond Tact OF April 20 1907.
nj thsreore this Indictment remains IN this Court and
uss0 under the OF Congress Of 1893 shs arse N TIE
progress the the Supreme Court the y1ed state
Ia he eIercse appellate ursditio could ultimately
revewrhe Judgment Of this Cout aud psss upon heeoas
tusonslty OF the law IN question. 8,
- on the other mans ~ Is hehselie1 70 nv - ,.
Court the question Of tho eonsituonhy q pncosii .en
by Of the lew Of Congress csnoi be nSrG 70 the aa
cston Of the Supreme Cosrt Of the Uni.ed STATES.
suggestions ia Judgment nlA'sei 20 t9e
non under confederation Because they tend 70 show In
tSeht place. that although the word, Of tho act Of log are
fsded (svea they had h%pOwer 90 do so to confer jls
dcin upou tie United SNes Court TO try IN the urst Ia
stNrce an indictment, Issued IN stae Court inasa'qoh IS
Sorsdton could be exercised and on which the ease ceud
s roseoued to judgment md execution And nes'noh as
fheefct would 30 deprive the Supree Court 81 the Sp
slAie jurisdiction in the exercise OF which Il ond Ieves Sc
fbtsdgment OF the STATE Court the dcneht was ho is
rnoed -, -,
az tonsress did 40 intend, it Is not only an INSTANCE o. #
tc rot contemplated By the Constitution Of tho Suee
xes but improVident and incomplete that 40 |o1
Bot sdeperden, Of these suggestions Congress hs Nd
novel In MY judgment - confer upon tho Oi'ea ss's
lart jurisdiction TO Try indictments found ~ sae stats
Cors.
Corr this district Il authority IN this need not
psne state tie difference in tic .~o e4-os They aI'
ssdy unlike a.. - ,S.
trsl Of tn indictment, the consideration 81 Aw o. n'
tused Saw viii be nvoyed-bAt IN every case ans IN