Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-12-30

and therefore reannounced it. Gen. Taylor,
continuing, discussed the provision of the 18th
amendment, and claimed that if the act or law
of the State was in violation of the Constitution
of the t. S. then the Jurisdiction Of the Court
could be properly exercised but this was not
the case here This question turned upon
another isslle and the Court was to decide
upon the question Of the legality OF the mode
of trial. which WIS Il stretch 1T authority I'M
warranted by the laws. Certain lawyers IN the
State thought they had right to invoke the
powers Of the l. : Courts when they felt dis
satisfaction with the decision uf State Courts.
which is wrong. If they would take their cases
to tho Court Of Appeals he would guarantee
that they obtained justice.
There was no distinction there on account OF
race, color, or previous condition. In the
Newton Smith case he became satisfied and 50
advised the Judge Of the court that the corpus
dclccti had not been sufficiently proved. lCol.
Stuart intcrrupting) ''hlr. Taylor do un-
derstand your remarks to apply to the counsel
in this ca>e?" (Gcn. r. mo sir do not
You know tia, | ucau the profession gcner-
ally" Gen. I. continued to define the inrls'
diction OF the court. pointing out the spheres
and powers of the different systems of judlc-
aries, State. and Federal. examining and sitting
the arguments of those who preceded him.
CAPTAIN u. i. Smoot following the At
torncy ticnenHl, maintained that the Court
could not act unless the prisoner was H.
legally detained. and areIc' 10 show that
there was no illegal detention. Gentlemen
had cglcctcd to quote that section nt the con-
stitutiOn which guaranteed to each State Re
publican form of Government which Govern
mcnt is To consist of II Legislative, Executive
and judicial departments. and II the |. ;.
Judge sets aside the proceedings Of The Court
ui competent Jurisdiction hc virtually destroys
the judiciary OF the Sa'c.unc ul The elements 81
Il Republican Government. Another view OF
the cause could bc taken from the fact that this
case wuuld ae held is precedent for vcNlng
the Court with writs OF this nature in almost
every criminal case that arises to the extent OF
rcinveSti eating the decision Oi every demurrer
ovclru!cl. Us IT, the construction 0t the
amendments to the /. :. constitution. they We're
mostly Of Il nature to pr"tcct the ctlzenS agalu>t
the illegal acts OF the general government
and not against State cncrOachulcnt>. BECAUSE
they were protected III that RESPECT already.
As to whether Of not this crime Is an
infamous offence, all crimes are more or
less infamous. morally considered, but lc-
gal ethics sometimes differed from moral
ethics. hcucc the distinction. The common
law divided infamous Offences into the lucri
cau<;, and crimrn iaiSi. aud this embraced al
most every variety OF crime. This doctrine
wis sought to be Introduced into English law.
and hence BOuvicrs definition. The nature
Of the crime is aSccrtancd by reference to the
punishment Inflicted, all illustration Of which
is the case Of felony at common law. which
was asccrlaincd by the forfeiture Of the goods
Il, .,l RI
show that the law of the Legislature and the
cution was cunlorlnablc to the English law
and wills no novelty. as hal been maintained.
Even in Connecticut. the native State Of one
of the counsel, the same proceeding was had
which Las been 20 ably criticized here. and yet
VIC have never before heard Of it, ulrcunSttu
tionality.
Col. Stcrl,rt concluded the c;>c for the prISo-
ner, aud remarked that the only difficulty he
could see was az to jurisdiction of the court.
Intimations had been thrown ont and criticisms
INDUCED in by the counsel aS to his conduct in
the case. and he WAS sorry that the prisoner
was not white man. because then no repro ch-
cs would be uniuStly hurled at him in the lcgl-
innate discharge Of his duty to the prisoner.
The question before the court as to whether or
not this is all infamous offence has net been
discussed by the COUNSEL and has not been
treated as an independent question. reading
from Bouyicr to show that the nature OF the
crime is determined by the effect not by the pun
ishmcnt. The lllh amendment goes further than
any previous provision Of the court when 1t
says that no State shall deprive any citizen OF
life. liberty or property without due process oi
law Col. Stcuart continued to argue against
the mode OF trial upon an information.
Jud &c t. at the conclusion Of Col. Stuart ;
remarks, said the case was of so much import
ancc and the points raised of so grave char
actor that he would take time to consider: and
deliver written opinion at IN early day. The
argument continued from ! to t.! p. n.
MAYORS OrFIcE--John Travcrs, hailing
from I.oudoun county, for diSordcry conduct,
was sent To the work house for 90 days.
Joe Winston, colorcd. for stealing poker
from the station house and damaging the work
house in efforts to escape from that prison. was
fined aud discharged.
COMPLAINT was made by a blind colored,
man named Emanuel Branch OF the inhuman
treatment he received from his wife, and an
officer was sent to protect him while he rcmov-
cd some Of his furniture from the house III
which his tormcntor lived.
NIGHT REpORT-Night cloudy and misty.
There were no disturbances in any quarter of
the city, One prisoner was at the station house,
bnt no dodgers were there.
SAMPLE MERcHANT-W. II. Barrett, a
sample merchant of New York, arrested in
Richmond, and fined in the police court Of that
city for selling goods without license, was
brought here, yesterday, Oh writ OF habcaS
corpus, and carried before Judge Underwood,
who decided that he WAS unu>tly held. The
Attorney General who appeared for the Com
monweath, appealed from this decision to that
of the United States Circuit Court. The &C,
ton of Judge Underwood in this case amounts,
practically, to giving free license to all sample
dealers to traverse the State and sell goods BY
sample without regard to State laws or city or
dinanccs, and it Is said that Mr.. Barrett will at
once commence suit for damages for false I'M
prisonulcnt, etc. against the city Of Richmond
in m, United States District Court.
TIE FREEnLEY INJUNCTION CASE. - nc
Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Virginia have
,,I,ro1 rrrpnt thp 1DDtI(atlOT