The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-28
THIRD EDITIO N
THE CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY.
Philadelphia VS.. The UnIttd states
Of America.
Argument Of the Question in the
Quarter Sessions This Afternoon.
Eto., EtO- Eto., EtO. EtO., Ets.

ON the bench. It will be remembered that, on.
Tuesday morning last, Commodore Selfrldge,
Yard, who had been commanded, by writ OF
habeas corpus issued by Judge Pelrce to pro-
uuce in court the body of Charles Gormley, an
alleged minor who had been enlisted Into the
navy, made return, denying the jurisdiction
Of the Court and refusing to comply with the
instructions received from the Score
tary of the Navy. Judge Peirce said he
was satisfied that Commodore Selfridge
meant no disrespect for or contempt of the
Court, in not producing the body of Gormley.
In order That Ihe case mlght 3e properly als;
Assistant United States District Attorney VAL
entine, and entered a rule to show cause why
an attachment should not be Issued upon Com
modore Selfridge for contempt, making the
rule returnable on Saturday morning following
before the Court in 6dnc. The following is u
copy OF the rule in question:
Court of Quarter Sessions the for the City
and County Of Philadelphia:-
1867 proof Of service writ Of habeas corpus here
the Court ordered a rule TO be entered upon Thomas
o. Seliridge, Commodore United States Navy, to
upon him for contempt of Court In neglecting or re;
out Of said Court in the case of the wealth
OF Pennsylvania er Tetdttons Charles Gormley vs.
Navy tested at Philsdelp6la on the 10th day Of Sep:
S A. 1851 S1H S s% g 5s
ley, under his custody. as 1t Is said, detained
Returnable on Saturday, September 2s, 1867, at 10
o'clock A. NJ.
Immediately after this disposition OF the case,
the Hon. William B. Mann, District Attorney,
arose and addressed the Court In speech of
considerable length, and utterly devoid of
dignity, in relation TO the somewhat similar
case OF Captain A. M. Brown, of the regular
army. in the course OF which he urged the Court
to maintain its dignity at all hazards, and
called upon Andrew Johnson, Governor Geary,
and all the other powers that be, to rally In
support of the Court o Quarter Sessions against
the "whelP" Brown, and the "rutfian," mhigh-
On the following day the attention of Judge
Pierce was called to another case of the same
refused to produce in Court, in obedience to a
writ OF habeas corpus, the body OF one Michael
Vice. IN 1 the navy. This case was Similarly % T dis
posed of by Judge Pierce Notwithstanding the
frantic proiesta!ions OF T. young lawyer who
the wake of the District Attorney by styling
the Secretary of the Navy "blackguard and a
rutfian."
These cases have ere ated o little excitement In
official dircles In this city ana Washington, the naval
to es SG y oree any tsme on tb
Of the local authorities to arrest Commodore Self
On the oPsnng Of the Gour. at 10 oclock this
selirldgew uld be called a. Il O'clock. A. taat hour
bers Of the Bar was crowded great deal of @tere It
being manlfesteG in the approaching proceedings;
and hudGw s and took s9s
States District Attorney, then arose and requested
| continuance OF the case. He read to the Court q
fhs hs sh' n
In adpas o. gun ent Of the point at issue. '0'Oe
or % St stated & ha sS bs ony on rs
Attorney. General by the Secretary OF the Navy. It
treated With great debeSon. Mr. an" Waenne rs
in ne eTy @ S & Of 5aS
| who were opposed to him in this matter.
R
6 a Sd S p6oS sa She a er 2 sS
diction of such cases in the Courts OF the United
MI. o'Byrne, the counsel for Gormley, interposed
objecting TO any argument OF the merits OF the case
| n motion q continuance. He
not object directive discussion OF the question
| to the motion for a continvance. Commodore Sell
fridge was entitled to no respect from this court,
that the application OF the Attorney General for
| MI Valentine responded that he made this appli
cation for continua9ce as the Of the
turn made by the commandment OF the Navy Yard te
Mr. s Should aH DE S
reasons for continuance, and proceed in regular
order. ..,., ..,.. 49,.
when Mr.. o Byrne again objected. and Mr.; Valentine
In objected to there being continued interrup
quietly H'S as opSo pS
side. and he claimed a SIM similar courtesy;
turn, which showed that the commandant thought al
%ss actng uSdeT the orders OF his superior ofoeT
which he bound TO obey, nile he entertained
VSsn5e then T,s to say that the Unsc
dicton Of these cases He cited in support OF this view
the decision OF Chief Justice Taney in a case ii
This declsiOn held that there two distinct soy
ereignties concerned and that where q return wa
ended. The opposing gentlemen, In addressing Judg
Pierce the other day forgot that they attorneys
and that this was court OF Justice The order OF Lh
Secretary Of the Navy In these cases was general
The court issue attachment in this case it shoui
PNP. Valentine then referred to the remarks mad
other day in the case Of captain BOYD reflect
held letter IL his hSHd from ME Court
fnf fha habeaS COrpu5 proceedings by which CaDLaiI
| Brown was released in New York.
District Attorney William b. Mann here arose, and
win much warmth said that while he meant no dls
respect his friend, Mr, Valentine, gentlemen dI
| He mad gone In person To New York aud warned MI
Courtney that an attempt 10 release captain Brown
"0uT prisoner had been taken from u.s. aud Cacta
| Brown was now an escaped prisoner from PeDnSyI
s lint hs ebere We're re men who won se Ss
libeI ty for the sake or gaining paltry twenty6v
VH1ter some further discussion Mr. o. Byrne snyin
that ne did not object 10 Ia Gormley'
case, t wSs oonfn1Sq t uh1I VI ne6s s6 @ As,h
| Kelley then arose and objected 70 postponemenl
He referred to the case Sed 5y MT valentine con
II did not apply 70 the present case He n intimate
| might have an opportunity TO remove the boys an
to carry out The threat mentioned In the mornin
papers Of increasing the force OF marines NJ the Nav
Mr.. valentine replied that he knew of no suc
than those which he had read. He could not,
course, pledge positively. that there would no rG
ment could influence the naval authorities, sue
should be the case. He further stated that his ar
Ps did not know why the remarks made in one cas-
should not apply TO the other, the reasons In bot
"gndse Pierce said that the continuance in Corn
ley case was by the consent OF COUNSEL but In th
oSr Mr. HlTst resisted the motion for the contnuanc