, 1875-03-13

81. Lottfs Etpukffean, March 10.
Ths dees'ou Of sndgs Ttest e. yeste.dsy in ths
Mr.. William Patrick. II ono OF unusual lntorest,
not mnso because Of tho nature OF tina cass IL
self, than bacsuac Of the strLktng boldnosn af
tho decision. and tho originality ana indepen1t.
Whon hs began the remarks which prelaeed hIs
docls!on yeatclday, II was apparent that he
ihtonded to waivo altogether the main points
in the Asgumcnt4 OF tho counsel, aud rule
on tbs matter ont OF hts own learning and ao-
coring 10 conclusions derived from his own In
vesti1atton. The question OF power Mpdsr tho
Iolasd law ho set aslds astugsthcr. Not ono Of
the points advanced By the prosecutions was con-
nitlcred bv him And lie turned to tho lpdiot-
mont i.eelf, tho insuhlelency Of whlch bad been
generally charged BY Cal. Dsoadhead. This io-
dtctment Judge 1rcAt picked tu pieces, hati when
10 had separated II into fsacnentD lie sot ono
tiinr auasb Itselts il liz. 10 ~ admissible
phrsae. Tho oGonso Of libel consisted III It's
publication. Tho dofendanr was not alleged to
hare published tho lioel In Detroit, but to
any Grand Jnsy 70 doter.nine tho quostien M TO
wlio wiics :he thugs witch are published by a
firm 0r cospotntlor duly orgnuszcd aad envagoa
IN the business OF paiutinE newspaper.
Nor was ths defendant properly al!cged to
have published .ho libel 10 Washington. Il tbs
circulation. Of copies Of The paper iii Washington
constituted tHllcatton those. ail he did not
Say II did not ktil ITO such otfonse was properly
alleged br tho indictment to hare been com-
rllttod by tho defendant. iteverting to tho ill.,
ltctment itself to nnd Tho oireuse With which ho
was gnarRod, It appeated that, *Eetaer published
In Washington CT uot. tho defendant in tlis caIs
wna oulv properly charged with having "writ.
tsn And compoacd. and caused to DO written and
co!nto. ad, this alleged libel Time ard again
It had bcer dectdcd suat tho ofreuso OF libel lay
In tts publication
Tle Indictment stated that tbs paper iu Which
thc lho!ous u1ntter had been puIllshei WAS cir
tt.t xrA T-t.
day that It wa* published In DotrMt. The Judge
regarded thin MS a fatas dtleet; TINT the taI1er
conlu noe, IN tho nature Vt thugs, have been cir
GU ated IN tho District of Columbus ttho time a.
lcgea iu tho indictment, aid consequently nuotl
waa not euLtJ. ~ charged. In short. Judge
Treats remarkB, delivered az they were In w
easy, conversational rone and mAnner. turned
mo rid.cnls tho en.ito procetasog Of tho DIS
ts!ct or Contntic Grand Jui1. aud infereatially
consigned its lrstlgato!s to tho scorn aud con-
teu,pl Of al dccels men. Tho eag-lar, ho-called,
did not apply, and honco could nut be construed.
Courts Wcro not called upon to coDstrno ths
powers Of officials under laws, when the
processes upon which the officials acted wers
void. This process was void 1t tho beginning.
4 tho subsequent p1 ocesHes for tho arrest anil
detention Of tho PRISONER had boen founded
upon tho Information embodied IN the inutct-
nient transmitted from Washington. ard the in.
processes fell The original order Of transfer
bad alread! been yoldol by agreement on Satur-
day, In coneeluento Of a want OF authority Oh
tho part u the osiicla, issuing tae warrant Tho
ca.o nov roated on an application to .hls Court
Tor warraut Of Transfer or removal. Th4a
Couzt could not find from tho iudictmout that
tAs prisonar wAa properly chnreod with any In
7icssule or trtsuia onons-. Hence, tho applca-
tIoD for warrant OF removal Was den!ed.
Tbs above Is \ uuulsDasr Of tho oral opinion
delivesod By 1udge freat. It does net ru.pors
to be reproduction Of lis woraH, but h,mply
aims 10 plssant tbs tdcls waich hs advanced.