The New York herald., 1869-08-17

mense. All were eagerly wetcning 70 geCa glimpse
crowded with interested spectators. At little past
nistant District Attorneys Jackson and Purdy came
IN and appeared for the government Soon after the
prisoner was asked II he had any counsel and ne re-
Counsel for Pratt said that inasmuch as Judge
McCunn had Issued an order absolutely dscharRing
the prisoner from the custody OF the United States
Marsaal he considered that the prisoner lawfully
at large, As the prisoner had Deen discharged by
the order OF court Of competent jurisdiction ne did
not conceive that he coud without compromising The
cined TO do So 'H Tne counsel handed the Commis
sioner copy Of Judge McCunn's order .lil tIs
Commissioner Osborn said that under the decisions
OF the United States Courts he denied that the State
ton. The action Of the Superior Court, so far as It
claimed jurisdiction over the prisoner, and insisted
on proceeding with the examination and ordered
pSrct Gtornsy Perlepont said he d not know
what the paper handed. up to the counsel was
whether a moLion had been founded upon it or what
the cOunsel's proposition was.
| The Commissioner SAID 1t was an order Of dis
charge directed to the jailer.
Counsel for the prisoner said that he made no
notion, az according to his understanding Of the
law the prisoner was legally at large.
The Commissioner said that as he considered the
law the prisoner was legally in custody.
Judge Pierrepont said lie mad no onicial knowledge
OF any order directing the discharge OF the prisoners
but he uad seen such an order In the newspapers
he had no doubt that there was one. he deeInel II
lis duty tnen 70 90 on with the evidence, that II
what the truth IN the case was. Judge Pierrepont
here reviewed tire case from the issuing OF the war
rant up to the time at which he was speaking. AS
the puoic have been Kept fully advised Of the facts
they transpred 1t Is needless to repeat them here
The district Attorney said that 1t was mater Of
great deal Importance 1t was not matter OF great
Importance what might become OF the prisoner to
the pubic generally, except tar as he should be
matter OF the most vital importance. 1t was OF
equal concernment whether he were an humble
or " whether @ ra ne were % fch me- or
and its lawful functions had been decided
beyond debate. The discussion commenced at
Fort Sumter In 1851 and was concluded
at Appomattox Court House In 1885, The argument
was rude one; but 1t was conclusive and ic Will
never be repeated IN our time. What are the legal
rights ana functions OF the United states in this
cases When this was ascertained it would be known
doubt might possibly arise; but they were not new.
They had been decided repeatedly and clearly First,
the laws OF the United States were clear on the
ject chat his Honor had Jurisdiction, and that no
court or State could deprive him OF it. pending an
York relating to the writ Of haDeas corpus settles
the same thing Judge Pierrep0nt then referred to
question was issued, reading from the statutes
Edm0nd's edition, page bS5, section 20. volume
second. The substance Of what was read was that
q prisoner brought up on writ OF habeas corpus
should be remanded If ned by the authority OF pro-
cess Of any United States court, where such court
said that Judge Nelson had issued the writ which
his Honor the Commissioner had issued arresting
the prisoner the charge which he was arrested,
would anybody for one moment suppose that any
Judge OF any State court could discharge the prisoner
while Judge Nelson had him before him in the room
for examinations Any one presenting such propo-
sition would be secuted as not having correct no.
tions Of the separate Jurisdictions Of the United
power to issue his writ Of habeas corpus against
Judge Nelson than Judge IN New Jersey would
Justice sa MocSnn and ' take % MIN to HoSoken. S Not
. bit OF It, That the issue OF the writ Of Judge
McCunn was right the speaker conceded. He
lected his duty the petition he had not issued
the writ But after 6e had issued the writ and
examination, the duty Of Judge McCunn was at an
end. Tie position Of his Honor the Commissioner
in the case was the same as would have been that
sioner, in cases Of thus Kind, precisely the same
powers as to the Judge himself, and placed
Judge Pierrepont read the statute OF the
United States passed IN August ls42, found
ton He then called attention to the date Of this
statute and that OF the State statute already referred
to no the
from the opinions Of the Attorney General, fourth
@ Tn was sn %Sas
had already been said as to their functions and legal
status. An opinion Of Charles OConor, made while
ne was United States District Attorney, was read
from the opinions Of the Attorney General, volume
six, page 236. This was to the effect that whilo Q
States commissioner no State court had any lawful
power to review the case on writ of habeas corpus
cases thai had been adudlcaed then referred to-
among others that Of Passmore Williamson, OF Penu-
sylvauia and the case OF Booth, Of WISCONSIN After
reading despatch from the War Department setting
forth the evidence that could be brought against the
prisoner, and stating that Governor Holman had
telegraphc despatch from the Governor or Texas
requesting his rendition but upon which no action
was taken on account OF its tnformaity, the exami
Deputy Marshal Crowley testified that ne arrested
Pratt In Fourth street. near washington Parade
Ground; that he denied that his name was J. H.
Pratt but that he admitted that that was his name
when taken to the jail.
The District Attorney stated that he had certain
documents tending to show the guilt Of the prisoner
but as they were not n legal form ne would not oer
them. Having no other proof to offer he submitted
the case to the decision Of the Court.
Commissioner Osborn stated that he considered
the evidence insufficient to hold him. and ordered
his discharge.
ton, and the prisoner was quickly hurried out to o
carriage and driven of at o rapid rate.
of Pratt, but the government were unable either to
produce the proof against him or state definitely
Soon after the discharge the soldiers quartered In
the building for few days past took their departure
for Fort Hamilton.
The Proceedings in the Superior Court-Judae
ArcCunn's Ontfankins Order In Case Pratt
was not Released by Commissioner Osborn.
While the proceedings were progressing In the
Pratt case before Commissioner Osborn Judge
McCunn prepared the Iollowin8 order, which he
placed IN the hands OF the proper officers for imme-
dale execution in case the prisoner was held by the
United States authorities
Whereas Noble A. Binge applied 10 me for warrsn. to
R s assa 70 be sS Sns S +, serss s
io United States Army commanding Fort Schuyler aud
S% Si5S,s
will probably be carried out Of the State and VIII otherwise
suffer injury before elcved these are
therefore, In the name of the people OF the State New
sai II. Pratt, and the said Harlow aud Taylor and
bring them before me to be dealt With according
Given under ry hand and SEAL the City OF New York
County Of New York, and the 10th day of August 1869
JOHN MCCUNN Judge,
SUPREME C0unr-CaAMDsas
The SusQuclannR Railroad War.
Before Judge Barnard.
suspension Of hostiities has taken place in this