National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-04-12
THE ATTACHMENT CASE AGAINST CHAs

Dana bases his refusal to obey the summons
of the courts, and to give that information.
to the grand jury of this District which it
is the duty of every good citizen to give, In
order that the laws may be inforced and
crime punished. In the case in which MIR.
Dana was summoned it is not unlikely
though we speak without knowing on what
facts the District Attorney acted-that his
testimony would have furnished a clue
which might have enabled the prosecuting
officer to obtain other evidence that would
have led to the detection and punishment
of crime. Without his evidence the case
was dismissed. Mr.. Dana was first sum-
moned to appear as thousands Of citizens of
Washington have been summoned in the
last ten years, by a simple printed subpoena,
which the clerk struck off so carelessly that
the year was not added to the date. He
had summoned in this way Senators, cler-
gymen, doctors, Secretaries, generals, me-
cbanics, merchants-indeed, all sorts of
members of the communicated he did
not dwell on it a moment, dashed it off
without dipping his pen twice, and there
are but two men in the country who would
not have obeyed 1.-THE privileged
Whitelaw Reid and Charles A. Dana.
1t is attempted to be made out that there
was some occult purpose in this summons;
that Mr.. Dana was in some sort to be en-
trapped; and yet Mr.. Dana's counsel make
the point that the summons was made out
so carelessly that the year was not filled
out. Surely if any grave purpose was de-
signed more care would have been taken;
but the fact was, that citizens had been so
much in the habit of coming to testify be-
cause it was their duty as good citizens to
do so, without any close scrutiny of the
mandate of the court, that the clerk forgot
he was issuing summons for a man who
is, by ignoble excellence, the bad citizen Of
the United States, or he would have made
out his summons more carefully and filled
in the date of the year. However, the
summons was issued, served and deied.
The court issued its attachment, and the
United States marshal at New York ar
rested Dana under it. A ha6eGs corpus was
obtained from Judge Blatchford at New
York, and the marshal was required to
bring Dana before him, with the reasons of
his detention. There Mr.. BARLEY, Dana's
counsel, appeared with him and commended,
first, that Dana was not obliged to come,
because the last figures of the date were
'1S7-," instead of ''1S75." These are his
words: "Your Honor will find the SUBJ
"pena which was served upon Mr.. Dana,
(Which is now before the court, is a
command to appear before Criminal
"Court of the District of Columbia
{" on the Goth day of March. 1t does not
"say in what year" And the counsel
went on to contend that it meant any Goth
day of March that Mr.. Dana chose to
make it.
Besides this the counsel urged that the
District of Columbia is a Territory of the
United States. The Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia in the administration
OF its municipal laws is merely q Terri
rial court, and Territorial courts are not
courts of the United States within the
meaning of section SIG of the Revised
Statutes of the United States. The only
authority ever exercised by courts of the
United States to send subpGnas out of
their district was derived from said section
$40, which is as follows: f'SubpGnas for
witnesses who are required to attend q
"court of the United States in any district
"may run into any other district: Pro
"Uided, That in civil causes the witnesses
Giving out of the district in which the
"court is held do not live at a greater dis
"tance than 100 miles from the place of
"holding the same" And said: eve
contend that this section does not apply
"to the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia sitting as a municipal Terri.
"torial court" The counsel then pro-
eeeded to argue that, while it might be
possible for the courts of the District of
Columbia to issue process which would be
effective outside the limits of the District,
yet such process would not be effective at
distance from Washington greater than
one hundred miles, for the remarkable rea-
son that an INDECENT person accused of
crime cannot make the United States pay
for suulmoning witnesses from distance
greater than one hundred miles.
The third point is the notable objection
that Judge Cartier did not swear to the
attachment. Here is the text of the argu-
ment as submitted to Judge Blatchford:
"Our third point is that the warrant is IN
constitutional and void on its face. 1t is
/" in violation of the provision of the Con.
"stitution which prohibits the use of a
warrant not supported by oath or affirma-
"tion. 1t does not even purport to be sup
"pOrted by the oath or affirmation of any
cone
Fourthly, Mr.. Dana urges that an at
tachment is ga criminal prosecution"
saying: "The removal of Mr. Dana to the
"District of Columbia for trial for contempt
"weuld be fragrant violation of article 6
"of amendments to the Constitution,
(which provides that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the
fright to speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been CON- |
Emitted"
The fifth point is that an attachment |
is not "due process of law" and that "the
"arrest and detention of Mr.. Dana on this |
warrant is q violation of article of |
Amendments to the Constitution, which
provides that no person shall be deprived
"of liberty without due process Of law"
The sixth point is that the only way to
reach recusant witness is by warrant
issued by a judge of the United States in
the district where such witness is found;
and before such warrant can issue, the
judge must be satisfied that the testimony
of such witness will be necessary in Grim
inal proceeding in which the United States
are parties or are interested. To all this
Mr.. Bliss, the attorney of the United States,
opposed the decision of Justice Cranch, in
q similar case, and many other authorities,
and Judge Blatchford reserved his opinion.
But the sum of the whole case is this:
Dana, who has with so much vigor devoted
himself to defending what he has declared
10 be the interests of the people of the Dis
trict, who has assailed a number of gentle
men here as robbers of the people, profit
gate squanderers of public interests, and the