Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-20

OF Monday n wa continued until yesterday
morning by request 0f C0Dtain Wise, VINO
telcgraphed from WASHINGTON that he de-
sircd - bo present. Nr. Wise WAS not In
attendance Yesterday, however.
TUE ARGUMENT.
The argument wa, opened by Colonel
Gibson. District Attorney, who spoke only
about ilye minutes. saving that no offence
had been committed. as the prisoner had not
finished and siensd his deposition before his
arrest. Waving this point, however, az the
merit. Of the case were not 10 be entered
into, he claimed lha, the state courts bad no
iuusGiction, rs the State officer uhe nOiary)
before VIII m the offence was alleged 10 have
been committed was temporarily acting In
the capacity Of a Federal officer and engaged
IN matter with which the State courts have
nothing 10 do.
CommOnWea Attorney SpOlswOod fol-
lowed IN resistance Of the motion 10 dis
charge Lonev. lie relied on the general
proposition TIA, perjury il an offence at
common law, and that the Virginia statutes
were sufficiently broid to cover the case at
bar. He also claimed that under the crimes
act the STAT courts are given authority TO
try such cases.
Mr.. Allan held that these proceedings, II
bad In the state courts. would not be CON
IDon-iaw proceedings, and that the ALLEGED
offence VS. not against the laws oi Virginia,
as the State courts have no jurisdiction IN
TIE matter IN connection with which the
perjury was charged TO have been COM
mfied.
Attorney. General Ayers took Issue square
ly With Mr.. Allan, and submitted argument
on the liuc that in all such cases the State
and Federal courts have concurrent or. more
properly. dual jurisdiction. lie said the
statutes OF Virginia were abundantly broad
70 cover any case Of periVry.t
THE PRISONER RELEASED.
Colonel Gibson closed the argument, which
altogether lasted for an hour and half
Numerous authorities were cited on both
sides.
Judge Hughes said the question was a
ycrv important one aud be had considered It
carefully. AS stated in the beginning he
only took into consideration the question OF
iudsdieliOu. Having decided case 10 Nor
i0lk last week IN which tins question was
involye1, and approaching the importance
OF the presen, case. he bad desired to hear
argument from the attorneys for the State TO
see II any reason could be brought 10 bear
10 change the ruling which he then made,
but not being changed be would adhere to
ms former decision and order the release Of
Loney.
THE OPINION.
lie then read the following opinion which
he sad he bad prepared with much care:
Erparie- lYis0n LopcV- Ruling Of me
Court.
Wilson Loney was arrested hy 3 State Of
fcer for trial before a State tribunal on a
cbsTre Of perjury. hlege6 10 have been COM
mitted in testiytog as witness IN a contest
for seat ~ ibe House Of Representatives Of
the United states, conducted aud regulated
hy an SC, o. Congress, before an officer de-
riVing his power 10 take testimony In such
contest solely from an act OF Congress. See
title second, chapicr g, Revised Statutes OF
the United States.
The contest In which LOnev testified Is not
within the puryicw Of sny law Of Virginia.
and is unknown to the jurisdiction Of the
state courts. II il especially aud exclusive
Iva Federal proceeding. A notary public Is
State officer having power to administer
any oatL required by State law and no other
he has no power 10 administer oaths re-
Qulrcd by act, oi Congress unless he is eX-
ueesslv authorized TO do 80 by act OF Con.
eie--. in doing which be acts 81 an OIL
ccr ~ the United States and not rs an officer
of The State. Tbs writ IS issued 10y authOr-
~ oi section 753 OF the Revised Statutes OF
fhc United States. which allows II "iu any
csse in which the prisoner has done an act -
"
law NJ TIE United states"
Perjury committed before any officer in
such a contest Il amenable 10 punishment
under section 1892 Of the Revised Statutes
Of the nited states. which declares that
Every person who. having taken an oath
before "a competent tribunal OIL '~, or per-
son I'm any c2,e ia which ipio OF ne United
States authorizes an oath 10 be 0dmia'stered
thar he viii testify truly, wIllully aud con-
trsrv 90 such oath states any material matter
which he docs not believe TO be true is guilty
ol perjury, and shall be pualshod,. %c., %c.
Aud the second section ot the Judiciary act
oi August Is. 1855, IN a clause which has
been continued ia All the judiciary acts of
Congress sluce 1880. provides that - tbe cir
euif Courts (cOncurrcntiy with the District
CourtQ of the United states shall have eN-
elusive cognizance OF all crimes snd offences
rctnilqhls under the authority OF the United
states excep, as otherwise provided by law.'
And here il no sCt OF Congress (which pro-
yioes otherwise" iu respect of perjury when
committed ~ circumstances wherein II is an
oG nee scauSt the United states. Section
.l ~ the United STATES Revised Statutes
rspsats aud emphaIzes the provision OF the
acts Of l1S9 TO 1858.
I'm general. and indeed In The great ma
jnfity of eases, perin'y Is an oience against
toe state. cognlzable exclusively by the Slate
courts. gut wien committed by persons
designated by penal laws OF Congress. 10
rrcrecdlngs prescribed aud regulated solely
hv aris - Con srCss, It Is m offence against
TIE United states. and Is exclusively cogni.
yshle hy toe ugiionIl courts. II ~ contrary
10 the policy 81 The law and 10 the principles
oi humanity mat person shall he ameua6le
t. trial aud punishment 'or The same act IN
twc different tribunals belonging TO diiler-
TENT Jurisdictions.
Undoubtedly there sTe eases in which this
policy Oi the law would seen TO be inetlec.
tive. iu an election where a member OF |
Congress and state oilCor are voted for at
the same iimc a false oath by the yotel
would BE cognizable In both the national /
an state courts, and toe latter would be !
generally lett to deal with II. - wbeu a
murder Is committed aud the fatal shot Is re- !
ctiyed in a national tort or docG.yard aud |
death eOsucs cut OF such place m an sdiOu- /
ipg county, the dual Jurisdiction would !
again occur Aod that court would proceed |
% trial and judgment whlca frsl tO0k cog. /
nizance ot The offence. These are cxcep. /
tious 81 the exclusive rule OF jurisdiction |
and bring into exercise the cOpilv OF courts. |
] think u + 20 these cases tina, section 1928 I
Of the UnHed states Revised Statute, refers. /
But the case 81 bar does not resemble 1
those iha. have been referred 10. The con- /
tiscs is proceeding uuknowr alike 20 State /
legislation snd tue state indications, aud 4
violations oi the LAWS OF Congress regulating 4
Il are offences against the U0Red States. aud /
hot against the state. Of which the natlonai I
courts have exclusive jurisdiction The 4
lesdins authority IA support Of this proposi- I
ton Is the decision of siI. Justice Bradley I
IN the case OF a. pdTte Dock Bridges Ia
H. Woods, AS.
The prisoner must De discharged from the
custody OF the state officer, aud II proper
complaint be made must De taken into Gus
tody Of the marshal OF this court 20 be dealt
with as provided for by tue laws OF Con.
gTess.
! bave hesrd this case 10 Circuit Court,
ard will make the order OF discharge 10 'bis
court ia order tbat II haye erred In this
ruling the matter may st once be tskeo
TO the supreme Court OF the United States.
where. being privileged, Il may be received
a