The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-03
U. s. CIRCUIT COURT T--CHIEFJUSTICE
g. II. CHASE, PRESIDING.

8. T.. CHASE, PRESIDING.
The court opened at 10 O'Clock yesterday
morning. Chief Justice Chase and Judge Bryan
Oh the bench.
The court resumed the consideration OF tho
case Of the steamer Gary vs. steamship Geno-
raj Sherman. Libel for savage. Magrath q
Lowndes for hbellant; Porter Conner for
respondent. This case came up before the
Chief Justice on appeal from the decree OF
Judge Bryan, allowing $1,000 to the steamer
Gary, for salvage The Chief Justice, after
hearing the evidence and argument of A. G.
Msgrath, Esq., for the Gary, and Of James
Conner, ESQ.,, for the Sherman modified the
decree of judge Bryan, and made the following
order
Upon hearing the proceedings, evidence and
arguments thereon, it is ordered and decreed
that the ibeant do recover from the respond
ent the sum OF $500. with costs. in the Dis
trict Court.
United States vs. VIM. Morrison. ct al.
Debt ON postohce bond. u. T. Corbin, Esq,
United States District Attorney, for the prose-
cution; James Conner, Esq, for defendant.
The evidence in this case was read and the ar
gument postponed to this morning.
The following is the full opinion of the Chief
Justice relative to the motion made on Tues
day, for the continuance Of the case Of j. NJ.
Aston vs. John L. Manning, on the ground
that the present jurors are not organized as
the law directs
The answer 10 the application for contin-
uance, made in behalf of the defendant, must
depend on the construction OF the acts Of Con.
gress relating to juries.
IF the proposition maintained by him is cor
| rect, that the jury now in attendance upon the
those laws he caniiot be required to Is submit st
his cause to its determination.
The only act which it is now necessary to
consider. is that of July 20. 1910. This act
tions Of jurors in the courts of the United
States shall be the same as in the highest
| courts Of the State in which trials by jury are
held. and that they ''shall be designated by
in such courts, as far as practicable by the
courts Of the United States and their officers
The act OF the State. in accordance with
which was the mode Of designating jurors
now here was selected, was passed in 1853.
The rule Of this court cpnformed to that act as
far as practicable. It had been modified only
80 far as to strike out distinction oh account Of
color. It retained as the law Of the State and
the practice Of the State Courts, property
qualification.
1t is not denied that the jury was constituted
according to the law and practice Of the State
tion was abolished; and later, within the last
two or three months. rule has been prescrib-
| ed for the selection OF juries in the several
counties, from the white aud colored voters in
the proportion Of their respective members.
And the question is, did these late laws be.
come at once the rule Of this court so far as to
make void the designation Of the jury selected
in conformity with the prior law and the exist
It is only necessary to look at the act of
Congress to determine this question. That
act does not make the acts of tue State Legis-
lature alone, but those and the practice of the
State courts, theguides OF the United States
Courts IN this matter. That practice, OF
course, is presumed to be in conformity with
| those acts, and ia most readily ascertained by
reference to them. But neither law nor State
practice has inata ntaneous operation in the
courts Of the Union. The State practice can
only be introduced as far as practicable, and
rules are necessary to determine how far it Ia
practicable. andto introduce il to that extent.
Courts Of the United States shall have power
to make all necessary rules and regulations
for conforming the design alton and impanel-
s nssxes aas mos rs sues sts t. ths laws and
This was done by the rule in conformity
with which this jury was designated and i'm
panelled.
In order that future changes in State law
and practice might be Incorporated into the
Deeds to provide 'And. further shall have
power, by rule. or order. from time to time. to
conform the same to any change in these re-
spects which may be hereafter adopted by the
Legislatures Of the respective States for the
State Courts"
Under this provision, this court has power
to provide, and will doubtless recognize the duty
Of providing, by rule, for the future designa-
tion OF juries in substantial conformity with
the recent Legislation. Bat, until some rule or
order has been made to that effect, that legis-
latton has, and under the aot OF Congress can
have, no operation here. ~ n :
.nd sns; ons sns Jury was iaw
by the Legislation referred to.
The existing rule rejects distinction on ac-
count Of color. The law now rejects, also, dis
duty OF the court to provide, by rule, for the
selection ofimpartal, intelligent and upright =
in one word. competent jurors, without reg ard
to either OF these advantitious distinctions. (.
The motion for continuance must be denied,
THE HoMEaTEAn RuTrnrro AMI Tow Arao