The New York herald., 1869-06-06
NEW YORK CITY.
TIE COURTS. .
rrIIED STATES CIRCUIT cou1T-IS EQUITY.

by President johnson Under Cohsioeration'b
Before Judge Blatchford.
In re Noses Dupuy and Jacob Dupuv.-This case
has been reopened on a motion for a writ OF
habeas corpus. The defendants, Moses and Jacob
Dummy. were convicted In the month Of Feb
ruary last in the United States Circuit Court, on an
Indictment charging them with resculng o quantity
OF spirits from the custody OF officer Of the In
sernal revenue. They were subsequently pardoned
by President Johnson, but the pardon did not reach
the Unteo States Marshal for the district till day
or two after the expiration OF President Johnson's
term Of Office. The then United States District Al
torney Mr.. Samuel G. Courtney telegraphed to
the authorities in Washington stating the
facts and asking instructions in the mat
ter before the Marshal should act on the
pardon. The result was that on the 9th arch, the
subject being laid before President Grant, he by ver-
bal order directed E. b. Washburne, Secretary Of
State to send to the Marshal OF the Southern dis
srict of New York q communication not to act on
the pardon. The Secretarys order reads as fol-
lOws:-"W ashngtOn, March g. 1863. To Robert
Murray, United States Marshal:-lf Jacob Dupuy and
Noses Dupuy are not released you will regard their
pardOns as cancelled, and do you return 1mmediatey
The same to this department. Signed h. b. wash
burne.n Ihls telegram being received was promptly
acted on anu the pardon OF the parties referred to
returned to the StaJe Department The question
now comes up on tne egay 0i ede G 6 Dy
in the executive chair. The case Is being argued
on the part OF the Dupuys by Messrs Stoughton and
Seward and for the government by Mr.. Plerrepont,
United States District Attorney.
The matter was argued yesterday before the court.
Mr.. Seward opened the argument In favor of the
prisoner Dy stating that the pardon had issued
on March 8, 1869, for the offence mentioned IN the
petition and sent ON by mail 10 Robert Murray,
United States Marshal In New York; that 1t was re-
Ceiyed at his Office on Marcn A; that other pardons
had been received by tnat Oicial and usually sent
by mail 10 wardens OF institutions wnere prisoners
United States District Attorney Pierrepont then
said that on March the President gave verbal
direction to the secretary OF State (Washburne) to
send communication to the United States Marshal
In New York in reference to the pardon This order
was Obeyed, and a telegram despatched TO the
effect that II the prisoners not released he the
NarshaD should consider the pardon cancelled and
!ean them IN CUSTODY hais was sS
was sent back and received at the State office,
when the President verbally directed 1t to be can
celled Mr. Seward contended that the pardon was
never cancelled, but admitted that the order had
been given for It's cancellation. Mr.. Perrepont
nantlned that at least 1t had never been reissued.
MI. Seward objected to this expression, put
allowed that 1t had never been out Of the State De-
partment since. Judge Blatchford thought lt lndis
pensaDle TO know what became OF 1t, as the Pres1-
dents order to cancel the pardon would not be equ-
valent to a cancellation, no more than an order for
par on Is in itself pardon. Still more, the presump
ton would be that ne had revoked his order II there
be no proof that cancellation took place.
Mr.. Seward said he had copy OF the pardon taken
from the records, and 1t bore no marks OF cancel
latiOn.
Judge Blatchford suggested that series OF ques.
his reply would be suricient this point without
his sworn testimony.
MIR. Stoughton said they would submit that the
President gave no further directions In the matter
subsequent 10 the order for cancellation.
Mir. seward then proceeded with his arguments.
The first point was whether the specific offence men,
toned In the return was set forth In the pardon.
Mr.. Pierrepont contended that the terms OF the
pardon were incorrect in stating that the conviction
took place In the January term whereas there was
no January term, and, moreover, the judgment and
ade imposed were different from those mentioned IN
Mr.. Seward said that In the words OF the petition
he had been only once convicted Of rescupg spirits
President was to pardon tnat offence. Besides, the
return stated that the trial took place January
1869, and was continued january 13, when the
prisoner was found guilty. motion for new
trial was made on February 10, and on Feb
ruary Is sentence was passed. There were two
counts, and on each count the prisoner was
sentenced to Six months Imprisonment and
the payment Of one dollar fine. In the pardon the
term OF imprisonment was stated ss year and the
fine as 500, which was the aggregate OF the double
sentence on the two counts This then, did away
with the objections OF the Attorney General. The
learned counsel then went on to relate the power Of
pardonng vested by the constitution In the Pres-
dent and showed that the formalltes which were
had been carried out In this matter. lie contended,
also (argulng from the parallel case OF Cross In
psnns tnat deave 70 .ne oneH nys states ee
the prisoner, VINO tnereDy had vested right In the
pardon and could force the Marshal by mandamus
to deliver it to HIM. The delivery In this was
complete, and the Marshal In tnls case was merely
the agent OF the prisoner Consequently the prls-
oDer was entitled to the full benefit Of the pardon
-
Patent Suit.
Before Judge Blatchford.
Samuel II. Doughty Us. Joseph j. West et dl.-ln
this case the Court has rendered decision In favor
Of plaintiff and ordered q perpetual injunction
against .he defendants.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT C0URT-CRMkAl BRANCH
The McHcnry Casc-MOtiOn for a New