The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-06-25

the State tribunal OF last resort then the appellate u
fsdction Of the national supreme Court be invoked
by writ Of But this discussion solely relates
claim original Jurisdiction Of the United stasss CrcsS
o. Under which Of the foregoing provisions OF the eo.-
stituon could the state Of New York have entered thu
latter court and have indicted Murray, her own Szsss
I, Whatever judicial jurisdiction s not granted BY the
soS the coa 70 ss
courts. II Kent 324) gltrIc Nt4lty%t
on this suSec. Of judicial ursdo,oD TO- undsr the theory
Of our Institutions necessarily reciprocal. The forme9
for offences against federal statutes aaA
the latter prosecute offences against State Sta
tutcs A. cases arsng under the laws Of the United
states must be originally Irrigated N national tribunals
arising under State Law must be originally contIos
verted state tribunals. The national government
projected from State usarpaton and the States are made
OF the United states may appealed bv the national
or whenever either infringe upoa
the constitutional and appropriate unotous OF the other
Q. is evident, from considering the theory OF this ~
lation that whom constitutional status OF paree
courts want Jurisdiction over subject natter
TO- Hence, although state suC an alien. the lasses
TO the federal tribunal Yet. 10 tina, case there would
an apparont right Of removal under the constitution -
IL The latter proportion was established in RespuA
lca Vs. Coobets, Dallas 41o and the subject mates
be,s had been sued action Of debt by the state =
Pennsylvania upon broken recognzance for good b.
nav;or re p.t'onsd 70 have removed lvr .Sa -
nen and under the concluding sentence OF SEA
q art 3, supra. The removal was objected TO- MessrA
lghman, Lewis Rawle Of Pennsyivsnia, and Harper.
Of South Carolina, argued in favor Of the rep2vaL
hessrs InsersoIl and nallss argued against It. TherS
was color for the Application becauGs Cobbett was
'foreig1 suoisat; and because he was defendant y
aclou q debt. The Coast, per Mexican, On j.. con
constitution nor Congress- ever contemplated thsA
any court undor the United States should tAcS
against sta.o that the action before the court is o.
criminal nature and for The punishment Of crime
against the state that yielding to the prayer OF tina pes
We
In The precedent; and tho reccgnzance OF would
not be accepted BY the Circuit Court sent 70 tho tos
sons Ind others, omitted for the sake Of brevity,
conclude the prayer Of William Coboen csnnos y
r. Thus Ah examination Of the case OF Goblet shows
hatthe court although satisfied OF the general rights q
court doubted his constitutional right the
subject matter OF the suit was an offence against State
law How much more should this COURT doubt the con.
sItutionalty OF nov removing controversy wherein
there is defect Of parties, with also defect OF suheos
matterf
reccrdSo far this state ie concerned tho quessio1
10 norigna and recent decision OF the Suprems
Coart in this district approving removal Of an aosa
from the state Court into the United States Circuit Court
under the cited law Of 1862 does not bind this Couss
against entertaining the question: ,-
L. The Of Jones seward wherein that decisioa
was rendered go How: Pr. Rep 4sa), was one whtcA
could originally brought tho court to which
It because there Individual plaintiff snA
vidaa defendant came, and each were citizeus q
different ates Hence fell within the provision Of ~
cons;itun allowing citizen Of State 70 ctssa
OF another State in the United states Court.
And cases from other States which may be cited
tiSctiou.
s. Omltting the momenous and Interesting considera-
thong which ise from this attenFs OF tho general gov
ernmsnt to CONTROL not snbvert State sovereignty,
there bare legal apology Tor asking that Jones ~
Seward should be removed because federal legisiata
amply secured TO the piaatiG his rights OF procedure
against defendant, and there In the court no D.
FACT o. mower TO determine the controversy. -
e isos u"der which this claim Of removal l. made don
motto bridge long chasm OF intermediate d,ncuases-
provide the offender against State statute shall -
csod In ahO nj
OF state procedure have been legsattvely applied -
civil when removed from state 70 fcderai trbuna
none such have been applied 70 Criminal prosecutoess
Aud could pardonf
7hrd-But. II there not failure q ccnstitutosai
power respecting this motion, II should be denied ~
want Of tho necessary enabling legislation BY Congress
1. because, even II state may copstiiutionally -
federal court matter OF original Jurisdiction, ~
State must nevertheless Go expressly authorized and 60
abied, by an act OF Congress-. TO commencs eueh sue
Ger WASHINGTON, ~ Gale VS. Babcocs, Wash O. G. Reps
j. 200. aud $. G., p: sasl
TO force trial by federal court OF State indictments
assiest FEDERAL oicias &c. doubtless such guardiaa
viccadc 20 the admin istrasicn. But ptenton 10 nos
carried at by tho provisions TO ciec,uate something
the criminal prosecution against alleged federal
wrong doer There must be enabling legislation which
shall vide for the anomalous status OF state prose
cutting tate offender In national Had this bees
dcne, then there must have been further Legislation
which should roylde Tor TO compel the blenders
Appearance and also for application OF the stale pun
shuacn, by the federal unge to the nviciop In fef
notice state procedure.
D. Tho statutes Of lseS, well as prior statutes, Pre-
vide os tao deEmua'ion OF private controversies, tut
MT for the determination OF such controversy
~ tfs bur 81 thir court
l. Isit no, clear that should this Indictment be ~
moved INTO United states Circuit Court, latter
mus, ram nd Il Tor want Of these very provisional
Fsi,rts Therefore, waving all the interesting topics
Of erggMeai and illustration which are suggested by the
many starting provsihps of the federal statute qucs-
lion, The conci isions OF she court should boz
l. That she motion must be denied, because to grass
~
citei section.
ton does not warrant the motion in sach case as Aow
before tho cour,
g. Tba. defendant must ans ver the Indictment
trial u this Indictment appropriately raises, in
appropriate tribunal, this questiouCan Congress allow
acdeta ocal justly his unconstitutional irespass By
No dsrassonate citizen will doubt that this
question should 10 Invariably discussed and decided n
these tines executive Influence tho bar Sssts
court rather than at the bar Of federal tribunal
lion. amssa J. Parker then addressed The court %
length the points Of bis argument being, irs that
case has vet arisen under law OF the United States
vi ne !hrd article OF the constitution by which THU
apn,aitou Ia 10 be tested. SeCondThat n the act Il
1858 gees beyond the corstituonsl provision voA.
THIRD That the only remssr Of !es dsendsns 4 be BE-
Foirth-Ihst the act OF 1865 entirely insppcaSs -
tLis because, nrst, did not Contemplate -
trial Of an indictment second-No jurisdiction 70 try =
to United States court ThTd-Ihe act OF CCngrs0
framed only with reference to The rebellion, aud We
act Of the defendant complained OF had no connecsies
Nr Evarts replied, and 10 the course Of his remains
SAID that II important mat the federal government
during the pendency OF the rebellion should disarm
and dspsee the interference Of foreign governments
with the integrity and power OF This country, and thas
the maintenance Of such relations shall preclude even
i'll affection and ruptures Of relations was purely quss
ton II executive discretion.
Al the conclusion OF Ar. Evarts argument Mr. BarAy,
ia reply to suggestion thrown out BY Recorder Hoo
man. said that the rule In federal courts invariably
recognize the consttutonaty OF the decisions OF ~
State courts upon local questions.
judge Russell announced that be void confer win
b IA associate and render decision this motion -
Wednesday the Nth Of July. Ihe decision wore favor
able TO the nrst motion he said would DO Unnecessary
10 argue the motion to quAsh the Indictment
PosrPONrMENT or THE CLANCY LIBEL SUIT.
AZ the opeping OF the court this morning District A.
lorpey Hall stated that the which SGT down