The daily citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1889-1890, 1889-10-26
WHITE AND CROSS.
MORE PARTICULARS OF THE,
ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE.
MIR. w. n. Henry Makes a Bril-
liant Fight but the Attorney Gen
eraI Holds His POsltiOn-A De.
cisiOn In Ninety Days.


cislOn In Ninety Days.
WASHINGTON, October %, 1889.
The case of Chas. Z. Cross and Samu,
= I. White, president and cashier of Lh
broken State National Bank of Raleigl
n. c., plaintiffs in error against tn
State ofNorth Carolina, was argued i
the supreme court of the United States
by Mr.. w. X. Henry for plaintiffs, ant
Col. Iheo. Davidson, attorney general @
North Carolina, i'll behalf of the State
Mr. Henry made motion asking for {
writ OF cert1orari to the supreme court o
North Carolina, because of a defect il
the verdict as sent up.
The defect was admitted by the attor
ney general, and the court then asket
why 1t could not be amended by consent
Mr.. Henry opposed the amendment by
consent, insisting that the supreme court
of the United States could not make a
record tor the lower court. He cited part
OF the opinion of the supreme court in the
Anarchist case, when it was said that
the only course is to grant the writ.
Mr. Henry came near getting the writ,
which would have probably contin-
ued the case for another year, but the
court examined the peadings, and, after
consultation, said that the defect seemed
supplied by allegations elsewhere in the
record, denied the motion, and the arpu-
ment on the merits Of the case was then
had. The facts i'll this case are known to
almost every one in North Carolina, so
will not rehearse them here.
The point made by Mr.. Henry, that the
State court has no jurisdiction to trv
Cross and White, was presented with
great power and ClearncsS, and involves
great question of State sovereignty,
and will constitute a leading case on the
relative jurisdiction of the State and Fed
eral courts, especially in regard to all OF
fences touching national banks.
There are many who think that Mr.. |
Henry $ position is not sound, and that
the point he makes will not hold; but
really no one will ever know how the
matter is until it is decided by the Federal
supreme court.
The court pressed Mr. Henry very hard
with questions, particularly Justice Gray
and justice Miller, on the point as to the
jurisdiction OF the State court, and on the
point as to polling the jury in said case,
W hich was alleged by plaintiffs as being
without due process of law; the court
seemed to be of opinion that it was not
a Federal question. Justice Miller said:
Suppose all you say is true, and that
the verdict was not legally and properly
obtained, what has this court to do with
it? How do you distinguish this case as
to this point from those cases in which
we have said that the constitutionalpro-
vision i'll regard to due process of law is
4 limitation upon the Federal Judiciary,
and has nothing to do with proceedings
II the State courts ?"
Mr.. Henry said that he was familiar
With those decisions, but he relied to a
great extent upon the powerful opinion
)t Justice Harlan, in which he said that
such question is a Federal question.
Mr.. Henry and Col. Davidson consumed ;
almost the whole of the four hours ses.
ion in arguing the case.
The opinion will probably be rendered
within the next sixty or ninety DAYS
The ability with which Mr. Henry has i
landed this case has been the subject of ,
comment here. His manner of ,
peaking is graceful and impressive, and
is intricate knowledge of the law made '
n evident impression on the learned
enCh.
He is young man of first rate talent,
nd has made national reputation by 7
is maStertul conduct of the case.