The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-02

street court building was crowded Tho Whole Of res.
terday By most respectable ard interested audto-
ry from its opening IN tho uosGlng till six T. NJ.
The occasion was the expected arraignment Of a
number Of citizens against whom the Grand Jury
brought up true bills OF indictment Tor alleged v!o.
lations OF the new election law. The cnclo-
sure reserved for the bar and the
prisoners was filled by lawyers, politicians
deputy marshals and other general officials.
At quarter past eleven O'Clock Judge woodruG
took his teat on the BENCH and the District Attorney
Noah Davis, subsequently appeared and sat next his
Chief Deputy, General Davies. Mr. Stoughton,
George Ttcknor Curtis ana Mr. Joseph Bell, the
counsel Tor some or the derenda ats, sat opposite
At the instance OF the District Attorney
THE CASE OF TERENCs QUINN
was called, and Mr. Davis moved that he DO
arraigled. QulGn was brought In.
pgaAND Fen AN EXTRA JUDGE
Mr.. Stougnlon said he appeared for the defend.
ants, and, as grave questions would arise In relation
the law, he would earnestly and respectfully ask
that The Count be SO constituted. by the presence Of
two judges that they would have the right OF Gp.
peal TO tic United States Supreme Court The in
dctmen.s against the defendants were found on tie
2eth OF October, and copies OF the papers were fur
nished tho counsel or the following day. Thc In.
dc.ments were long and required the earnest and
careful consideration OF the counsel for the defence.
It seemed TO him Just and proper That the Court
should call il the aid or district u lge thai they
might CO.
on A CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION, TO TIE SUPREME
COURT
to have the points involved and the questions raised
decided BY the highest tribunal
Judge Woodruff said that when the cases are put
In egc situation BY tho arraignment OF the deien-
dants lie would decide whether it was proper or
necessary to Call In o district judge. AZ present
n n nv In
form.
Mr. Curtis hoped the Court would carefully con-
sidor the molten. The law under which the cases
are TO be tried involved lie
DESTRUCTION OF A SECTION Or THE CONSTITUTION
Of the initial States-a section Which has never vet
received Judicial or Congressional constTuc-
tcn. he would, therefore, urge that tie Court be 50
constituted that they might 60 @ demurrer to tho
Supreme Court.
THE NOTION RESISTED.
District Attorney Davis regarded tho application
as one OF an extraordinary character. pe,orc the
cases to be tried were in any form before the Judge
the counsel asked that two judges preside on the
bench: Judge Lenedct, when The cases were
brought be ore him sad he should Ike to have
the respo 3sibility himself; but he ad ray that lie
wold call on Judge WogdruN.
muir 20 he indictment, he would call on Judge
Blatcniord, out at that time tue cases not In
such form as called for the preceding.
HON The GRAND JURY WERE CALLED
Mr. stougnton sad ne Was then ready to preac mt q
demurrer 10 the ndicLent, ana TO call the attention
OF the Court to the mods adopted In oonvenlny the
Grand July. rs would fist move 10 quash the In
S was not "a nG II t 4s ma o pe
tice OF tie Coert. lie hcld in Ills hand an AFFIDAVIT
made by Terence s Quinn. Ia Tlich he swsars. on IN
Mr.. Kenneth G. White took some Of tie names out OF
the Directory ~ haphazard. that proceeding was
not IN accordance with the practice VI The Court.
District Attorney Davis replied that NJ motion 4
the character made could be predieated on al cx
parte AFFIDAVIT. The Court could not 90 behind the
record, and there wa3 nothing the record TO show
that the Grand Jury had been improperly called.
Mr.. StoughtoD II reply, cited case In which a
motion was made to quaah an Indictment before
Judge Story on the g,oand taaS one OF the VII,
the Court quashed the indictment.
Judge WoodruLghero consulted with Judge Batch.
ford who had just entered, and 10th decided not to
Mir. ssosglt3n said he WAS ready to argue tho
points involved CT to take certificate 81 Mr. Whie,
mad been called.
Nh; osrtis here rose and said he was ready to de-
muir 10 toe Indictment IN he case OF Quinn.
Judge Woodrun-Proceedi We are Ie@dy to hear
Tou.
ARGUMENT OF Mr. CURTIS.
ar Curtis, Ia opening ask,a the attention Of the
Court to the twentieth section or Tie Election law,
aaoeca u o9SFesa NAY aS1S Which refers to
lion had to te sought outside 81 tie WORDS tor there
was no u9ti9al resi-iry, and the section then re-
BY that section Congress adopted tie registry OF
tue State aud proyned punishment for the very
same ohSnce5 Ilnch are punished by State laws.
The na.u. OF The then political system was well
known. They had q naaonal ana STATE,
each were distinctly daaned, and neither
could adop5 Tie criminal code or tho other
Tho theory en- Wncn The Statute aanesty proceeds
Is ihis-Inat Congress has adopted tor certain pnr
poses portion ofthe Sta Laws and having adopted
Il IL proceeds TO make additional punshnients Tor
the same offences that are deDonroed IN tho Siu.e
S%s y rsy y9ESo1 y MAJ y Is not within
ton 0, the criminal code OF STATE, ana in aid OF the
State policy or in deTogatlon from it 10 make the
TO punish them by additional ana DISTINCT penalties.
When we consider the nature OF our POLITICAL sys-
governments, each having On Independent and sepa.
rate legislative power applicable ID distinct subjects
these governments OF portion Of tho criminal code
OF the other reduces Itself at once ID the inquiry
how can either government adopt lac criminal code
OF the otter ana legiste 10 enforce IL Without
clslng The same power that Las been exercised w
the government Willie the laws are supposed TO be
adopted ana enforced by additonai and supple
meDtai legislation? There canuct, therefore, be
such an adoption OF laws without tie exercise OF the
same power by both governments. rats becomes i
very Important question here. bcoeuso there Is
strictly spesk king, no sach thing as cenGIs-out leg3.
the powcrs-the legislative powefs-sranted to The
United States are exclusive, eXcet ting 0e--tat is
the power OF leglslatitg for internal taxation; all
the ether powers ere exclusive III their nature
and reside in toe hands or Congress alone
All she other powers OF legislation are retained
~ sho l1b.sbSo VI W Tue ISOsie u lH3
States. Therefore, 1t Is necessary TO determine what
Is the meaning of,an adoption by one CT these gov
ernmenta OF por,ion o. the criminal eode Of tko
other 1t has never before happened Ia tie political
history of the country that Congress has undertaken
10 enforce tie laws OF q StGte, cIuiinal other
wise; but 1t has happened tGat state mas under.
taken TO enforce the laws or Congress.
Counsel then quoted from the case 81 Eastoa ys.
Moore (Nheaton's Reporta, which he subsequently
stated was the only case III the authorities that was
applicable to the case before Che court, Congress
has provided iof gu oiaer SUBJECTS u w, Ens
mote good government and 10 provide
for the general defence This is power
exclusively vested In Congress. how, then, could
State government proceed on the same grounds
and provide for the same objects as they might think
propcr and punish in their way 8 violation OF tie
law they so enacteds What Is tho test Of the va
iidlty OF one OF these governments making laws for