The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-08-20

which n1any persons Co1le05dfed would occur
in consequence Of the lively excitement crested
BY the conflict OF jurisdiction between Marshal
Barlow and Judge McCrnn. Inc e1amlaation
into the case Was conducSeo Deiore united
States Commissioner Osborn. Il
Pratt made his entrance into the building
several minutes before the examination began.
and Was attended by o company of United
States artillery. His friends. Who gathered 10
considerable force, awaited his arrival with
great expectation, seemingly mach concerned
for fear that he would be remardeato the GUS
tody of the Texas authorities, In whose han 8,
ID was said h,s life would be sacrificed as an
atonement for his misdeeds. A large Dumbar
OF people were assembled in the street, boing
attracted under the suppsmtion that some
thing startling would take place between the
military and the sheriHs forcea After the
the case of the United States Us. Pratt, there
was q general eagerness manifested to see the
prisoner, who was brought in through side
door. BE subsequently took seat between
General Cochrape and General Pryor, his
counsel.
Osborn we're opened by Mr.. p1ior. who sad
that be would not appear foT the pr,sSDefa @ aa at
charged by Judge McCunD:. Hs denied that
he had any intention Of sbandonlng h,s clients
cause 40 long as he had the poA er to invoke
Justice. The commissioner claimed that the
s. ate courts had no right to interfere IN the
case. and cited the decision or Chiet Justice
Tanev in the case OF Abelman vs.. Booth, to
show he had Jurisdiction over the prisoner.
District Attorney Pierreport subsequently
made an address defending the action Of the
United Sta es authorities in holding Pratt
for examination. He said that the question
about the jurisdiction OK the United
States had already been decided. The
debate commenced at Fort Sumter in 1851.
and was concluded at Appomatto1 Court
one. but it will never bs repeated in our
time. The District Attorney represented that
the commissioner had precisely the same ju-
risdictlon over the case as Judge Nelson would
have had il it had been conducted before him.
aud that no enc could deprive him OF his jurIs-
diction. He ssid that Judge McCunn had q
right to issue o writ of fhabeas e0rpus, but that
he should have remanded tho prisoner back to
the commissioner on his DISCOVERING that he.
WAS in his hands. Heysaia that Governor Hof-
man bad received Geographic dispatch from
the Governor Of Texas, requesting h,m to re-
mand. Pratt 10 his custody. After reading q
dispatch from the Secretary OF War, mention
.if,k the facts connected with the crime alleged
against Pratt, the District Attorney, ,announ led
that the government would prodnce such evl-
dence against Pratt as had been placed IN Its
possession: -. :.
; Deputy Marshal Crowly was then called, and
testified q. TO the manner Of Pratt 3 arrest he
said that the defendant had informed Mr.;
Tracy, the warden OF Ludlow-street jail, that
bis name was Pratt, and that he was from
Jefferson, Texas. This was the only witness
70 luced by the prosecution. 1t was under
sto ID that the DISTRICT Attorney bad large
mass OF documentary evidence. but that it was
not in proper shape TO be introduced in the e1-
animation. The District Attorney eaid that he
could produce Witnesses who had heard the
testimony on the trial of the psrties implicated
with Pratt, and also papers re|aIing to their
trial, but It could not be legal evidence. The
commission then gave decision discharging
the prisoner, on the ground that, judicially
considered, there was not sufficient legal evil
dence to hold hIm.
The announcement was greeted with loud
cheers, the applause apparently being given
by Pratt's friends, who accompanied him on
his way out Of the building, cheering at short
intervals. IL was reported that Pratt imme-
diately started on bis way to Canada, fearing
rearrest in case witnesses should be brought
here from Tex,s. '"%