The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-03
U. S. CIRCUIT TCOURT--CHIEFJU
S. P. CHASE, PRESIDING.

\ q. L. CdASE, fftESlD1N0'
The court opened at 10 o'clock yesterday
morning, Chief Justice Chase and Judge Bryan
On the bench.
The court resumed the consideration Of the
case Of the steamer Gary vs. steamship Gene
raj Sherman. Libel for savage. Magrath d
Iowndes for libellant; 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. q.
Magrath, 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 libellapt 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 postofice bond. D. 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 ]. 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-
nance. 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
court is not constituted in conformity with
those laws, he cannot be required to submit
his cause to its determination.
The only act which it is now necessary to
consider, is that Of July 20, 1910. This act
provides that the qualifications and exemp-
| tions Of jurors in the courts OF the United
States shall be the same as in the highest
| courts Of the Stale in which trials by jury are
held, and that they ''shall be designated by
ballot, lot of otherwise, in the mode practiced
| 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
practiced in the State Courts when the jury
now here was selected, was passed in 1859.
| The rule Of This court concerned to that act as
| Tar as practicable. It had been modified only
80 far as to strike out distinction on account OF
color. It retained, rs the law OF the State and
the practice Of the State Courts. a property
| qualification.
It is not denied that the jury was constituted
| according to the law and practice OF the State
until last year. Then the property qualihca-
1 ton 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 and colored voters in
II ~ asr iva mo
[ And the question is, did these late laws be-
come at once the rule Of this court 30 far as to
/ make void the designation Of the jury selected
| in conformity with the prior law and the exist
| ing rule2
Il is only necessary to look at the act OF
act does not make the acts of the State Lsgis-
lature alone, but those and the practice OF the
State courts, the guides OF the United States
Courts in this matter. That practice, OF
course, is presumed to be in conformity with
those acts, and Is most readily ascertained by
reference to them. But neither law nor State
practice has instantaneous 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 lar it ls
practicable, and to introduce it to that extent.
Accordingly the act provides that the
Courts Of the United States shall have power
to make all necessary rules and regulations
| for conforming the design alton and impanel.,
| ling Of juries, in substance, to the laws and
usages now in force in such State"
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
practice Of the national courts, the act pro-
ceeds to provide, <tAnd, 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. But, until some rule or
order has been made to that effect, that leRis-
lation has, and under the act OF Congress can
have. no operation here,
It follows that the present jury was lawfully
designated and fmpane1led, and L. not anected
by the legislation referred to.
The existing rule rejects distinction on ao-
count Of color. The law now rejects, also, dis
tinction on account Of property. It will be the
| duty OF the court to provide, by rule, TOR the
selection ofimpartial, Intelligent and upright -
in one word. competent Jurors. without regard
70 either Of these adventitious distinctions.
The motion for continuance must be denied