New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-02-07
oense shall be committed any Of The places e9tso g.
the punishment OF which is not specially IIoveu aD D

oTense shall be committed in any Of he place. Co.
the punishment OF which is not specially IToVu ,aH
by any law of the United States snen onS.s.,
upon conviction in any court Of the Un'eu o'a,o
ing eOcni2ance thereof be liable 10, ana IeVe'o tn
same punishment as the laws Of the sla'e ~ or
such fort, dock.yard navy.yard aIsenI 20 si,rs,od
magazine or other place coded as GloresG" ~ .ts 10
nroyide for The Ike OfseHse when cOmmlleu "ip '"o
body Of any county Of such STATE ,..,o;,r ona
The terms in any Of the places aor.sau nn.
ceded as aforesaid refer TO the prior see,loIs ~ ~,
ond second Of the same act, which provide FOR the
punishment of specific OteBses against tnc laws VI
United States when committed ID any place OF heeGu'
hniIdino of the United States the site whereo Is
ce1ed 70 and upder the Jurisdiction OF the uDlted
States" question arising under this third secion
came before the Supreme Court OF the United
States in the case of L. 5 Paul reported IN the
e,b Peters The court held in that that the w0ros
the same punishment as the laws OF the State IN Wbeh
suoh fort Sc coded Aforesaid Is situated are 10 we
limited TO the laws Of the several States In force al ne
time of the enactment OF the statute Whatever isn'
be the opinion OF this court If this were now ne"
ton il is bound 10y the judgment of the supreme oo
already cited. That court limited me claus a,e ~
above 10 the present tense and confined 10 'he uho
the act Tie clause describing the places upon ~.
the law was 10 operate Is also, and emphotlc! ~ ~"
present tense and after the most careful
have been unable to fad any rule OF coDsuc,T1 10 p
reason which would authorize this court 70 eA'eu
act in its reference places beyond us scope as
to the State laws To 10 &T so %S Custom House was
mo, coded 10 the United States TIL 1860: BetWeeh Tue
date of theac 10 wit March g. ls25 andtDe date o the
in
birb wore in force at the frst.named date were re-
neae1 and among them the very act rehed on N ms
case This latter aot was repealed in ls29 10 hold
that the act Of Congress so far as II refers 10 places
ncIrded plaees thereafter 10 be ceded and restrict
the words laws Of the state provide 10 sueD laws as
were in force az the passage OF the act Wouu III sncc'
decide that the act Of cesson by we Slats OF Srw ,
York in 1865 Pr0pro rPore operated 10 revive ana put
in force highly penal statutes Of the state whch had
long beer repealed j cannot bring my mind to bele'e
that either Congress or the Legislature OF the State OF
~ IL cd
Ouences SO surprising and remote might ana thhh
would arise that they could not fairy I've pesuDeu !"
have been within the contemplation OF ether party. ~
every deed of cessioD OF building ste 10 me
United States is 10 revive criminal code when mas
been denDc for 20 years strange results might iooW
Whipping and the pllory would IN some cases nave 10
be inflicted for they the penalties denounced D!
some Of tbe State laws in force IN ls3 Tor ononses lot
which the laws Of the United States PROVIDE no PUNISH
ment The United States have only abolished iles mes;
barbarouS relics of barbarous ace IN cases wncre tbe
infection was provided for by acts OF Congress IN
deed. should hesitate long before should decide
that Congress intended that courts should resort te
repealed laws Of Gny State as source " criminal
jurisdiction.
have not come TO these conclusions without careful
consideration II II is said that thus construction OF
the I'd section Of the act OF 1925 unfortunate asuh
as there are many places and buildings belonging To The
United States the sites whereof have been ceded since
the act went into operation and therefore ofenses na!
be committed within such places which cannon pc pun.
ished under any existing law Of the Jned Staes tie
answer il that the responsibility for this difficulty docs
not rest Win the lNdlc0l department OF
ment Courts canuOt make, but only expound ana en-
force the laws, But mere glance at The history OF tlc
Government ID show that ths act must on necessary
be limited in It's operation. II cannot extend to States
admitted into the Union since March ,, ls2 because
there laws OF the State in force az that time
The State which was not IN existence on the 81 OF
March s25, could Of course have no laws upon which
this act TO operate assume, Of course that the
word State as used in this section. refers only 10
State OF the United States for II II should be as
sumed that il vas used in more eomlrehensi'e
sense and included any State body polite which
might be thereafter admitted TO the Union then, in
case the act should be held 10 apply 20 building sites or
places ceded 10 the United States since March s25
the Federal Courts in Florida, Texas, California.
the States carved out Of the Louisiana purchase since
that date might have 20 rcsQT TO laws IN force in les
which were OF SpaRiss, Mexican, or French origin
This would oecp. unless they Iesorted 20 territorial
laws then in force but none were In force and the
old laws Of foreign origin still fingered they woud nave
to force such punishmeDts at those latter laws provide
If follows therefore that iuasmuch as tie Supreme
Court has declared that section Of the act OF ls5
the courts TO the laws OF the States men
force the operation Of the act must aso bt Geo
time Tbs IL the logical result VI the doctrine lald
down in L. S. sgt. Paul. already cited and 80 long
as that case stands, the only one when can DC
reached without producing most singular ana neon
gruous state Of things which tlnk II IL not TOO nueh
TO say that Congress never intended.
! The case Of tie United States agt. Davis, reported
in the 9Th Of Mason has been relied on establishing
precedent for pguishing oienses moi expressly pro.
hbited by act Of Congress, IN places The se WHEREOF
has been CedcG since March le but tht chst oI tc
United States agt Paul wac subsequent Besides the
point was not raised in The case IN 9TH OF Mason ana
therefore that case not entitled 10 very great weight
! in determining the present motion.
There were several other questions discussed on the
argument one wac whether the I'd section OF the
act OF March g. le25 not intended only 10 supply
penalties in cases where Congress had prohibited acts
bu, had omitted 10 prescribe punisbmeni. Another
question wGs whether the term lave OF the state
referred only 10 the statute laws or embraced also TIE
common law SO far as II was IN force IN the State
! Another point wac whether the Court could, m any
event resOrt for Jurisdiction 20 State law ater II war
repealed. Some Of these questions are by 10 means
ree from difficulty; but tue conclusion 70 which have
come renders their consideration unnecessary here.
regret that am compelled 20 announce this result
The crime charged ID the indictment ~ grave one,
and understand that Of the defendants is accused
OF having committed the act While IL the employ OF
the Government in official position, the duties OF
which embraced the supervision OF bonds Of the chsrac
ter Of the one alleged 20 be fraudulent regret that
the charge cannot be Investigated IN this Court and
the defendants be acquitted If found innocent and II
guilty be properly punished; but am satisfied that
this Court bas power 10 try TIE case on tins ndct
meni and must therefore grant the motion that the
indictment be qgashed.
For the Government Messrs Courtney and Sedgwick.
For defendant Barney MessTs. Benedict, Burr
Benedict.
For other defendants MessTs. james Dunphy.