The weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1869-18??, 1870-08-31

| li7 W AFTERNOON SESSION.
Shortly after o'clock, his Honor, Judge
Brooks, took his seat. a1'h hass
JIM. McCorkle, Esq, for the defendant,
stated that he was ready with the returns to
the writs issued for those in custody Of Col.
Kirk. Those pardoned or paroled, and not
in the custody of defendant, were, he pre-
sumed, in accordance with the ruling of his,
Honor at Salisbury, discharged.
Gov. Graham moved for the formal dis.
charge of two of the latter.
His Honor thought it better to postpone
the consideration OF the question involved
in this motion for the present. He repeated
his decision, however, that the parole of Col.
Kirk was not binding. .5c..f
The returns Of Col. Kirk were then pro-
ceeded with.
John Trollinger was called. The return.
charged him with conspiracy with others)
to subvcrt the State government, and with
conspiracy to burn a school house in Ala
nance 500
On II demand for the testimony against
the prisoner,
Attorney General Odds said that the de-
PENDANT had no evidence here to establish the
truth of the charges contained in the return,
so far as they affected the guilt of the petit
toner; that the defendants counsel, with
all due respect to the opinion of this Court,
did not believe this Court had jurisdiction
over the offences charged that the highest
judicial officers of the State had, in recent
opinions, so expressed themselves, and hee
thought that the recognizances taken here,
returnable to the State Courts, would have
no binding force and would be disregarded
by the State Courts. For this reason the
defendant thought it unnecessary to offer
evidence.
Gov. Graham considered that this init
mated an intention on the part of the State
authorities to rc-arrest the prisoners on a
criminal charge. He commended that the
jurisdiction of Judge Brooks was full and
complete and that discharge by this Court
was full and complete, and that re-arrest
Of the parties, after a discharge by his
Honor, would be contempt of this Court.
Gov G. did not agree with the Attorney
General as to the force of bonds required
by this tribunal. He referred to the act of
Congress under which Judge Brooks was
acting and commended that it gave him full
power in the premises, and concluded by
stating that in the event of re-arreet of
any of the parties discharged by his Honor,
he would bring the matter to the attention
of the Court
Attorney General Odds replied. The
course proposed to be taken would be con-
fined within the provisions of the law. He
and his associates gave no heed to threats.
They were willing 70 take the legal rcspon-
siaility. tf.e-
Mr.. McCorkle said he had no knowledge
Of an intention to re-arr,st any of those par
tics 1t was certain that the person who
now produced them here would never touch
them and if he did he ought to be punish
ed for it.
Judge Brooks said he had maturcly con-
sidercd the matter of Jurisdiction, and he
had no doubt now on the question. 1t
would seem strange to confer upon that
court, by act of Congress, the power 10 issao
the writ of habeas corpus and deny it tho
power to examine into the allegations in
return to the writ The result of this would
be the discharge of every person brought
before the courts, how guilty soever they
might be- The court clearly had power to
issue the writ it must have power to inves-
tigatc the cause of the detention of the ac-
cused, and if the evidence showed fair signs
of guilt, the Court was then compelled to
bind over the accused to answer in the Uni
ted States courts or in the courts of the
State
Governor Graham followed with similar
views.
w. II. Bailey, ESQ, of counsel for the de-
fence, said that he desired the position of
himself and associates to be distinctly un-
dcrstood. In the course they were taking
they were sustained by the opinion of an
eminent judge of our State. They felt JUS
titled in their course. but still it might not
| be the correct one. lie said this much in
their own justification.
Judge Brooks said that the 14th Amend
ment had greatly enlarged the jurisdiction of
this court, especially in cases like those now
before them. He cited the provisions of the
Constitution wherein the States are prohib-
tied from passing any act to deprive citi-
zen of life or liberty without due process of
law. The prisoners were in the condition
contemplated by law. They were deprived
of their liberty and it was the duty of the
court to issue the prit and ascertain
the cause Of this deprivation. Certainly
Congress never intende to confer upon this
the court power to issue the writ and deny
it the power to investigate the alleged
charges. As these parties now stood they
were guilty of no crime, and unless the
evidence could be produced they would be
discharged without day.
The names of the prisoners were then
called seriatim and the charges against them
in the return read, as follows:
L. M. Totten. The return charged him
with the murder of John ". Stephens. No
evidence being produced, Mr.. Graham
moved he be discharged. The Court held
that the return was not testimony and or
dercd Ills discharge ~
Jno. G. Lea-murder of Stephens, whip
ping a colorcd man and going disguised
No evidence; discharged.
| Inn M NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. to ouar