13 Mart 1843 Tarihli The New York Herald Gazetesi Sayfa 1

13 Mart 1843 tarihli The New York Herald Gazetesi Sayfa 1
Metin içeriği (otomatik olarak oluşturulmuştur)

TH Vol. IX.?No. 71.?WhuU No. 3985. To the Public. the NEW YORK herald?daily newspaper?published every day of the year except New Year's day and Kourth of July. Price 'J cents per copy ?or >7 'Jfl per annum?postages paid?cash in advance. THE WEEKLY HERALD? published every 8aturday moraisx?price 8^ cents per copy, or $3 13 per annum? postages paid?cash in advance. ADVERTISERS are informed that the circulation of i u lx i titiiitv turtlw A vn antl inr.rHRfiiaff ii:r nei ain la uvrx umn i * wv/ww4?..^, ?- ~ 0 art. II hoe the largeet circulation of any paptr in this city, or th* world, and it thortfort, the beet channel forhusinen men in the city or country. Prices moderate?cash in advance. PRINTING of all kind*, aiecuted at the most moderate price*, and in the moit elegant rtylc. JAMES GORDON BENNETT, PaoraicToa or th* Hkbald Establishment, Northwert cornet of Fulton and Nassau street*. HOUSES Ti> LET AT YORKVILL.E.?2 Isrge houses ou the corner of 811'' street ami 3d .ivrtiue; eilhrr o( th-m it calculated for a public home, grocery or private residence. Outln- premises is aline.?table,1 owliwy al'ey, and a tine garde u consisting of 8 ot*, with grape vines and liuil trees lliereun For lernu, impure i.f JOHN A. MORHILL, Err,.. m*?wr No. 11 Chairhtrs st. Jgt TO LET?I'he upper o-it ol the store No. 7 New street, if* doors from Wall street; the second story X!AS.h"s two offices, and it is adapted for a merchant or lawyer. Also, the three story house 31 Wa'ker st between Broadway sud CI inch st, nn esceUent situation lor a geuleei family, occupied by Mr. Verpl>ncn The brick atpi- corner of P.be sr..l f!l*etrv streets, oecuni ed by Messrs. Valentine (Sc. Co., at a teed store, a desirable situation. Tns convenient two story house wi'h a'tic rooms, btsemont and rouuter Cellar. No. 229 Nineteenth street, occupied by Mr. W? kt The two story brick house. No 73 Oold street, one door from Spruce st , formerly owneu by Mr. Milai Hitchcock. The rents will be moderate. Appty to MK. DELAPLA1NE, H8 Wall street, mg lm*r in < ffioe No. 9, cor. ?f Water st. MI'O LET.?In Dean street, near Smith stree , Brooklyn, the snlendid three story hon-e, finished in the best manner, with two lots of cronntl attached. Also, coach bouse, stables, kc. A variety of the most choice grare sines. Also, several truit tracts, with a well and pump of excel'cnt ipring water on the premises This pro nertv is well calculated Tor the accommodation of a respectable family, to whom it will tie let for one yoar or more on accommodatii g terms, by applying to JOSEPH McMURRAY, m? r_ J00 Pine aired. TO LET?From lit May neir, two no rfern two story pvw House*, in Grand street, near Wooater. Alsn, the "in Store No. 89 Canal at, now orcutiied as a chair store. It could be made into two very convenient ?n> cs Apply to JOHN THOMPSON f I9-* Imrc 60 Greed or 27 Wormier sts. TO LET?A BOARDING HOl.'SE? One ?.r the most desirable stands in the city, having been octopied as snch for a number of years, with a good run of busi less Enquire of James T Barne-. 255 1 earl street, in the sitne luildiog <.r of Sanderson, 211 Pearl st. rr6 lw*m JtasL TO LET?b'rom 1st of May neat, the modem built ItTTB two story briea house. No. 11 Third st, with attic, bastIJULmriit and cellar, aud mirble mantles throughout For urther particulars inqnire at <79K Pearl st lAf lm* JmT TO LET?The store No. 97K Nassau street, in the flrB Henlil Buildine. Aonlr at the Herald office, cor Naa [jjj^san mil Fulton nr?i-ii', ' mllr JaE TO LET'?A small, neatly furnished lodging room. mm for a gentleman. Term* moderate. Apply at 161 Canal iiH?ireet. m!2 Stjgb a A RARE CHANCE?A fi'ttrate stand f?r a grocer, situate on cor?er Delancyanl Cannon ?t, with a mall lock, the preterit proprietor wiahiog lo go lulo the :U"U r *. N. B.?Harinv been long t stalr'nCed, would, with proper tieuti"d. command a first rate iuo f business. ml' 'J: r ~w> ullEKNWoOD CtiTTAUE To LET-Tins ??! heanti'ul country reatdence, on (itwaaot Heigott, ? klyii.ail,<>iu>ng the tireruw rod Crntrterv , r-ontni' g >ti good rooms, cellar, wood home, and larg> girden, all n good o de>. Du'a ce from H e 8 tiA Kerry rj< mil'a. An oniiihna pass< a the end of the afreet s-veral times daily. It it to ad?*nt?grnualy situated at to commiuil -n uninter nt*d Tiew of the Bay. N'W Yo-k, J -raey (. itv, be. Irqu re at t?e to'l bridge, foot ofCi.u tat, of R Martin Ik Co, !6 Juiin at. New York or ol Mr. Martin, on the premises.? lien! $130 __ ml1 e utt're OFFICES TO LEt-ln ore No. 60 South strset. I ff? Apply to JOSEPH McMURKAY, UJL 100 Pine street. f I lee a FOR SALE?A desirable country residence at Heinpatead Village. Long I aland; a large well built House, ine ttaee style, with 'arm, Sheds, lie.,and lea eres of firit rate land, in ludiug a Garden well stooed with hrubbry. fruit tree*, Itc . in a high sure of cultitation; it ta neat d o>- Eultou atreet, less ihan a half a mile of ihe New fork ard Long'stand Railroad, whi h hat a coirmuuic lion rith thi city several timet a day, and at a rate of lare v ry inch redue' d irom former piicea, makiilg it a moat deal aMe nuenc" for a ; arson retiring from the city, or one who may rish to do biuinesa iu the city. A portion of the m nry can Imaiu aJa meikaga, nd the balance can \e ptid in dry goo it r grocoriee at marker prices. For fnrthe'pt tieultrs. apply to JOHN 8. TOOHHIES, B >nk Stofe, r I 4 . :*i i\-<nnjju, i usiuiu ct, ml }w*r Msniaronrck Wt-n luster o , N, Y, JM FOR SALE OK EXCHANOU FOK CITY PROT7W PERTY?A Farm of our hundred acres, situated m JM-Rocklsnd County, ten miles by the New York an* ,ne Railroad or sit miles Ir-ra Nya. k Landing. I!.indsurm-|y lusted, pinny ?f fruit, well watered tud wooded, and eaiy of ice 11 at any day in the week, by the above road,in three hours or lurther particulars enquire at i7 Uoaveorur srreet, where idscape view can be seen. 171 lm*r KOR SALE OH BXCHANOF, FOH PROPERTY JfclN THE CITY OF NEW YORK-A va uable Farm tek.af about 8# areea in Scartdale, West Chester County, ro miles belew White Plat es and twenty-fire rom New York I the main rosd leading to and from said places. On the remises u a spacious doable two steiv dwelling house, with kitchen attached; a Darn, carriage and oat homes, all iu fine der; I bearing apple orchards, mostly gr ited fruit, peach wry and peat trees, a good well of water and cistern holding hogsheads of water; about twelve acres of wood land. Th? hole farm well fenced and mostly with stone wall and in >od repair. The Broll Hirer crosses the rear, along which le railroad runs, now nearly completed, to While Plains. Petsens desirous ol seeing the pre ieea >cill find it one o< ic most des.ruble places in Weil Chester County. Enquire J. J. TRAVIS, on the premises, or D. BRUSH. ESQ. mjr No 92 Fulton st. ? Pa Mm At AUCTiOn?Will offered st pualic I vendue, the farm late of William Cook, dec-a-ed. iu Hanover. Morris County, N. J. containing 129 acres uably divided iu meadow, i>asture and plough land, with a rse supply of wood and timber,! c oremeut awel.ing house, ro barm, and other out houses. Will he offereu together or parts, st the hoese of Vrm. McFatlan in Whi jinny, on F/iy, the 24lh ofMsrch, instant, at t o eloi k. P. M. Conditions ill be liberal, and attendance st the time of *?le by the subriben. SILAH TUTTLE. tALVIN HOWELL, mlOtlt *r Evr-ntota ot s?id Drcea'ed. u?~"h'ta"!*>.N island farms huh sale.-two Bvalushls lir.ns, hMids.in.lv ?itu ted and in i high stale km. f cu'tiration. For partirula-s, enquire of E H. L.UU l v fc tO. II Broad street, or david jaques. 2)0 mal^ mil 8t"r JN1TED STATC-S HOTEL OF I'M LADE LPHIA. LL trarsllrrs who have passed ihe ilsys a"?d nights of the'r i soiouro in Philadelphia at this fine establishment, speak in uof unratified piaise of its aceoinni.dat ous, its table d ma agemeot. The arvaugtmrn so' the house are adiniraf syrtemalie, and thnre are substantial c intuits to be f nnd hit Ho'rl tnat wilt b- apprrciated by in nt persons, such as Jean, quiet, and well-lnroished house, swell-supplied read I room, and a host whose rouataut? ff'rts are dl ected to renr ibis wan.iou * highly agreeable resort for respectable trailer'. Mr. Res, bv his polite and affable deportment, and his fmitted perioi at attention to Ihe tables, in I the gtneral mlort of his guests, wins firor from all wliw frequent hit those who in the morning prefer to indulge in the "sweet torrr balmy sleep," I us trad of attending to the breakfast mm out, find at lae hour which runs their own conrenieuce, I to consult their wishes, and hate any delicacv which affords, prepaid withceleiity for 'heir gratification. i? r ii serveu in a light,airy, and ?pacion? dining rrom ing a harden, and 11 a repail that would d > credit to I in the touu'ry. uatiouol till a hoaae is decidedly the best in fh.ladel UK ou Chesuut at, upyoaitc the Bank of Lute.I it.tea? centre tf fashion and business ot the city. *r METALLIC RAZOR ST HOP KOUK sluts, invented by t?. SAUNDKRS, r keeping Haxors alrr..y? in order?it piodu-es i ami thin edge to a lazorin a tenth part of the lired on a hooe, withont nsing oil or water. No other the kind het ever been so universally known and anr, haeini been f?r the last twenty-live years in ennitant early all the cutlery establishmens in tnrnpe, and knnwledgrd to have no equal. In New York, waa invented, It received drat premium* at the Anwitnte every time it was prevented for competition, and ( without the aid of puffing,! established a reputation IS ot America, of being the only Ivaior Strop that will <rs in perfect order. tales are n the |>oateesion of the inventor from the nude grntl?men of both countries, speaking higtdy ol eriortty. When taking into consideration that those n have no interest in the tale of ,he article, and i testimony without solicitation, speaks volumes in its t it the only Strop that hat hem deemed worthy ol and connteFlatting. The great number of those alone imp it at being the clima* ol perfection, may bet moie satisfactory to Ire public, the names ol tleinrn who have given certificates as^to the merits ol i are here published?(tenersl James Tallmidgr. Prcsi >e Aineru: ii lustiioie ; Pro). John Uriscom, Dr. Va' lott, and Mr. Millikeu,caller to the ltoy.il Navy, Mi Msnufjctoiy l?J Broadway, Mew York m? lm'r l*ft AUTKltTIStf.ytlliNT-INot.ee to Masters ol els and nih rt visiting Liverpool ou business or plea rt Wirsoeh, Ivte of ttic Wasliiugiiui llo.n, beg illy la inform her nnmernns American friends, ihn unoved Irom Stint PeulsSqusr' to No ifi Uuse street, I, a few minutes walk Iroui ihe Custom H .use, whirl ouse is titti d up with every romfo. t m.d conve niencr s to br favored with a continuance of that support a. trs snorted to her. n.4 I m i ! ft I It I) 9 : B! It DS'!!?Tor sale, a ? hoice -election o Ties, ol all kinds Some are eicellrnt singers Also Iking Parrot. Likewise, an aa.oitineiit of Kancv PiI all Bin it. aekuowle. ged hy all to he the finest in th> quire .*t No 313 P?ufl (reel ICnlnuirr 53 Krirv street m, up stairs. ?,7 'nue ISALH WAN I hi) KOIl SI'tlNK ANUM. N l'.-Uramlr or good sand stone coping, t? cover 500 feet ol paraiiet wall of Castle Williams; coning live and one loot thick, wid'h may be variable. Tops ami ie nicely cnt.ioiuts and bed to he t.uly dressed Stone ivered .11 tiuveruor's lilaud in May and June. P.oio :ub;c foot, aav 2ViO cubic feet. or idon barrels best Hydraulic Cement, to he dsliverrrt rnor's Island, iu small lots, as wanted, and thu barrel, ck .a Capt. John Sanders, Corps of Kugineers. N. Voik tnlO lw*m NTTPHkJkTWINii PAPKH?70 bnlermTa very so it article, much approved of and wall adknted for hot hlpa, reofs of hniisea, Uc.. for sale by fc k. COLLINS ?t CO., Month street. E NE NJ U. S. Circuit Conrt. Before Judge Butts. The Somen Tragedy.? [We sow give the concluding portion of Mr. Butler's argument in this case ] I think it will be found when we come to look at the acts of Cangrcss, which I am now prepared to examine, that the Congress in the execution ol the |iowers devolved on them by the constitution, have adopted the very view o( that instrument which I have endeavored to present, The first ot these is the judicial lawof 17^9. This act creates the federal judiciary, and establishes tne national Supreme Court called lor by the constitution, and also the in. ferior Courts which ura first, and the highest of all, the District Court, anil next the Circuit Court. The 9th section conlern on the District Court a certain criminal jurisdiction, as well as a very extensive admiralty jurisdiction on civil cases. The District Courts of tho U. States, then, are invested with all the admiralty and marltimejurisdiction of the U. States, on certain criminal cases of a minor kind. The 11th section gives to the Circuit Court of tho U. States, along with a very extensive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the laws of the U States,except as this section and the laws of their. States otherwise provide, concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts in regard to crimes and ofr-nc.es punishable therein. This act then makes the Circuit Courts the highest courts of the U. States of original criminal jurisdiction. Kortlia Circuit Court has in the fir st place concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court, und then extensive original jurisdiction of all those higher criminal offmces which are by the 9th section made not cognizable by the District Court. 1 pause upon this act of 1789 lor the purpose of bringing to the notice ol the court the peculiar relations in which the Circuit Courts of the U States stand under the lederal constitution, and also to the other courts under that government, und I observe that the Circuit Courts of the United States being tho highest courts of original jurisdiction under this govi rnmeet, are when compared with other courts, whether civil or military, Superior Courts?that they sustain the same relations to naval courts martial, as the King's Bench in England sustains to all the other courts of that realm, and which are analagous to the relations in whir.h the Supreme Court stands to all the courts of this State ; and that the Circuit Court of tho United States, both as regaids its civil and criminal jurisdiction, is inferior to the Supreme Court, yet not in the sense of the section as an inferior court. On the contrary, that it is a court of general jurisdiction, and that all those rules of the common law which apply to tho highest court of general criminal jurisdiction, as contradistinguished from interior courts, do rightly apply to the Circuit Courtof the United States, although from the limited character of the Federal Gov eminent, it is a court inferior to the Supreme Court.? These views of the Circuit Court, and which repudiate the idea thrown out at the commencement, by counsel in argument, that it was to be regarded as an inferior court, within the srnseof common law distinctions and cases, which will be found to be stated in 4th ot Dallas, p. 8 ; 10th W'heaton, p. 102; 1 Paine, p. 45; 1 Sumner, p. 478? The consequence which I draw from this lirst principle is, that it devolves upon those who object to thd jurisdiction oi the Circuit Court of the United States over an otlence conceded to belong to the government ot the United States, to show clearly, plainly, and beyond all doubt or peradventure, that the jurisdiction resides in some other court, or else it is a casus omissus, for which Congress has not provided. Thut is the common law principle in relation to the Court of King's Bench. What I mean is not to draw nny analogy trom the peculiar powers possessed by the Court ot King's Bench, and thence to argue that the Circuit Court of the United States ]>ossesses the same powers, nor do I mean to insist that the Court of King's Bench in England has any jurisdiction over ofl'-nces committed on the high seas, for in the former part of my argument I stated expressly, that such jurisdiction belonged to the Admiralty Courts. But the principle for the establishment o( which I make this reference is, that the Circuit Court is not an inferior one in the sense of common law. It therefore devolves on those who object to thejurisdiction ol the Circuit Court o! the United States to try andjpunish a felony committed on board an United States ship of war out of the territorial jurisdiction of any particular State, to show clearly and conclusively what other Court has the jurisdiction: for the presumption must be, until that be shown, either that the case has not been provided lor at all by Congress, or that it is to go unpunished, or that it belongs to the Circuit Court of the United States. And this much we think we are authorized to affirm ol the judicial act of 1799, by which these various Courts were created. Now, then, wc will go to the law of 1790 passed by the same Congress which passed the judicial nf 1740 Thin lamnr I7UI I mov ?o? very careful consideration at our hands. No man can rcadtliat law without being perfectly convinced that it was the intention of Congress?whether the design was accomplished or not in all respects maybe a<iuestion?tc exhaust the whole power conferred upon them by the Constitution, and to make a penal code which should be co-extensive with the authority of the new Government, and providing lor all the cases over which the'r crime nai jurisdiction could extend, so far as related to crimes and misdemeanors known to the general law of the land ?to the common law?and to the law of the several Statei which had constituted this new government. They in tended to provile for every case belonging to this general head of criminal Jurisdiction, which they could lorcsee And particularly was this law designed to execute those provisions of the Constitution referred to at the oommence nient of inv argument, by which Congress wa^ aetho riaed to define and punish piracies and other felonies and olfances against the taw of nations on the high seas. The Oth section of this law provides for the misprision of felony committed on the high seas. The 8th section closes with the provision that the trial for the crimes specified in it shall be in thsdistrict in which the offender shall be apprehended ;thu* executing the power devolv ingon Congress by the 3d nrticle of the Constitution, which provides for trial by jury. And that provision I may remark is alto contained in the law of 18J5?the general crimes law of that date, which is to a certain extent a substitute lor the law of 1790. If is si ction 14 of the law of 1833, which makes provision forthe trial of all offences committed on the high sees in the district where the offender shall be first apprehended and brought. The 9th section of the law of 1790, provides for certain ether cases of piracy and robbery not included in the general terms of the 8th section. The 19th section provides for the punishment of persons accessary before the fact, in case9 of murder, piracv or robbery on the high seas ; and the 11th section provides forthe punishment of those who are accessaries after the tact. The 13th (ectior. provides that if 8dv seaman or other Dentil shall commit man. slaughter on the high seas,or various other otfoncos ?nu. mart ted, he shall be punished in the manner therein described. And this 1-Jth section uses language which can be applied only to public armed vessels: "If any Commander or master of any vessel; Ac. lie."? The word " commander" is unnecessary, unless it had been intended to be applicable to the commander of a public armed ship. And the next section, the 13th, will be found expressly to refer to such vessels. [Mr. Dura? Oh! that meant reveutie cutters.] U is "in any vessel tie longing to the United States, or to any ci'izen or citizens thoreof," so that Cot gress discriminates between vessels belonging to citizens of the United States -and that embraces the whole merchant marine?and those vessels which belong to the United States as a government. The counsel says "revenue cutters." Undoubtedly. But does that exclude all other armed ships, for the revenue cutter is no mot e a vessel belonging to the Uni. ted State> than a frigate, or a seventy-four, or a sloop ol war, or a gunboat. I n truth a revenue cutt< r is an armed vessel, and belongs to the naval service, and so regarded as a part of that arm of defence. Tho 16th section pro videt for the punishmeutoi larceny on the high seas, and amongst others refers expressly \o the stealing of any arms, ordnance, or ammunition belonging to the United States, or stores for the victualling of soldiers, marines, pioneers, Ac., language which also can be applied only to public armed ships. "Marines" are persons who serve only on board ships of war. We then affirm of this law?this is our construction of it?that inasmuch as the wordsol the 8th section are broad, i<nd sweeping, and universal, relating to murder and all cases of felony committed on the high seas, without relerence to the question whether com mitted on board public armed ships, or by persons belonging to that service, or on bosrd of ships belonging to citizensol the United States?defining tho offence merely ai one committed on the hieh seas?that that emhrnees el fences ot thin kind committed on honril ol National ships public armed vessels, revenue cutters, as well as when committed on board of merchant vessels. And we aak the Counsel on the other side to show the exception in any other part of this law, by which cases of this kind can be taken out of the broad and comprehensive terms of the H.h section. Will it be said that at this time there was no Navy, and that therefore Congress did not intend to legis late 111 regard tootrsnr.es committed in a Navy? lam aware that a suggestion of thai kind has heen made by one of the most distinguished Judges in this or any other country. I think 1 can give a satisfactory answer to that and vindicate that distinguished Judge from any thing hut a legal error into which like all fallible men he was i liable to fall, and did tall. Although it ia true that therr was no Navy distinctly organised, and constituting any material part of the public defence of the United State) on the 30th of April, 1790, when this law was passed, yet it is a mistake to infer Irom that foct that Congress did not intend in making this enactment tc look to the future existence of a Navy, and to providr (or cases arising in a Navy, for in the section to which I have already referred?the 12th section?they speak oi "Commanders;" and in the l.ltli section they speak of vis sels belonging to the United States ; alio in the 11th *ec lion they apeak ofembrrzling munitions of war in posse* sion of marines, as well as ol gunners anil soldiers, and s< forth; all showing that Congress had, when passing tliit law, distinctly before thein tlie idea that there would be i Navy Did they not kuow that they had themselves by oneofthe organic laws passed tor the purpose oi carry in g 'he Const tor ion intoeflect, the act of 17S9, establishing tho War Department, (Duane .V Bloron, 21 vol. p. 32 made express provision tor a naval force? This act win passed, us your Honor recollects, on the 7th ot August I7M0. And under the care of th s Department of War, th. Navy continued to lie, until the actof the 30th of April 1798 which reptftM so Mok oi th? pravloMlsw min Vested the power in tho Secretary of War, and for the firs imf organized the Navy into a distinct department. Ii he same book (page 381) will be found the law of 179 which provided for a navel armament: end between tin >r.iiK 1.91 and 9*N whim the Navy Department was of gani/.a', tin* naval forceof the United Mates had come ti Jie quite considerable. It was then in consequence of tbi thleatening poiture of affairs?particularly with respect i France?lurg ly increased, and a department to take thi special supei vision of it, was established. But until thi year 1 MHO there w as no law w hich could provide for thi punishment of any offence whatever committed on hoar< i United States ship of w ar, exaept so far as the pi??| lent by virture of his general authority under ihi Constitution aa commander in-chief ol the land andnava forces, might be anthorired?it indeed he even < ould beto establish naval courts martial. And those who content that the broad ami sweeping language of the 8th soctior of the law of 1700, ia to be so narrow ly construed as not t< W TO EW YORK, MONDAY MC apply to ships of war of the United States, are therefore driven to thl? consi ijuence : that whatever felony ,of ho wever atrocious achuracter, might he committed on hoard axhipol war,at thia period, it could not have been punched under the laws of the United State*; because, under their argument, there wan no law applicable to it until the year 1800, and antecedent to which time a large naval armament wai actually in existence. The remurlt, then, of Chief Justice Marshall, although perfectly correct in regard to the technical tact,that in 1700 there was not any navy in existence, it yet?1 say it with great delerence, but with entire convict'on?not a sound remark. Be. cause the navy was then practically in existence, and Congress, in passing the law ol 1700, knew that there was to be a navy, and, hy various provisions, they made re. terence to it, and expressly declared the sovereignly and Jurisdiction o( the United States over all vessels, whether belonging to a public navy, or to private citizens Another Conseiliiencn. il it shall turn ant thnf th- vioa. ,,r ih. n<h?r Mile is correct, to wit: that this law of 1790 never applied to offences committed on board ships ol war?is this, that tilt this very hour the atfence of manslaughter, committed on tho Inch seas, is unpuuished by any act of Congress; for when I come to the law of 1800 I shall show that that crime is not included in the provisions of that law, and this is in express terms denounced in the act of 1790.? It wilt be contended by the other side, as we have reason to supjiose, that it is not within that law, because no pat t of the iaw applies to the Navy. The consequence will be then unavoidable, that that crime is till this day not denounced in any ol the statutes ol the U. States We submit, it your Honor please, that those general terms of the act of 179,1 must be held, so far as thuy relate to crimes and felonies known to the common law, ad general law of the U. States as within the provisions ot the law, if committed on the h gh si as, out ot the jurisdiction of any | particular State, and by persons belonging to any vessel 5 over which the U. Stutes,as a separate and independent | power, hasjurisdiction ; and that they are not to be limit tuil or restricted to the merchant service. There is noth ] ing in the law itsell on which to 'outid any sucit restrictions There is nothing in the reason of the case on which to support any such argument. On the contrary, there are provisions in tho statute which negatives such an argument; and there are cogent aud numerous reasons which require that an opposite construction should hegiven. Ana, let mo ask, what possible detriment can result from giving these terms their natural signitication7 \\ ill the gentleman opposite be so good as to point out some practical inconvenience which will result from the construction, for which we contend 7 Some interruption of the disciplineof the Navy, some weakening of its vigor aud etticiency ? They can show no such thing ? But on the contrary, every argument which can be drawn from the law und reason of the case, is in favor of a large construction of this law, aad that is to bring within its powers all otf.-nces committed by subjects of the United States, whether in vessels belonging tothe merchant service or in the Navy ol'thegovernmtnt. And, indeed, those employed iu the naval service of the country aru more eminently within the jurisdiction of tho ' government to which the vessel belongs, than tho c em piuyeu merely jn nor meicnant murine; anil instead ol there being any argument from reuaan, convenience, or justice against it, there are the strongest argument* deri vable from those sources, in favor of extending to the per sons employed in the naval service tho trrms ot this law. 1 There has been no judicial decision in which that ques tion has been distinctly presented. The only case bearing any reference to it is that ol the United States against 11 wins, in 3d Wheaton, p 3 10. This is the case alluded 1 to by your Honor, in the opinion on the application of Mrs. Cromwell, sometime In the month of January, and from which, and some part of th" language of Chief Justice Marshall, your Honor inferred that it was doubtlul whether the Act of 1790 applied to offences committed in vessels of war on the high seas. Aud it is on the doubts drawn by your Honor from the words of Chief Justice Marshall, thai the venerable ex Chancellor Kent proceeds in his lirst proposition to lay down as doubtful whether the courts of the United States even possessed this juris, diction over murder in ships of war. I am not at all sur prised that on a question submitted to your Honor, without discussion, and that being exceedingly hurried, having had, 1 believe, only oneuightto prepare that elaborate opinio1 , that you should have fallen into the error, which ?ith all deference, but all freedom as counsel,! would venture to impnteto ycu, because the languagu of Chief Justice Marshall is directly calculated to induce the opinion which you have given, aud 1 bavu no doubt that nine 1 lawyers out o( ten. looking hastily at the cases, I and considering the high authority ot the Chief Justice would have acquiesced in the latter part of his opinion, 1 that it is a doubtful case whether there are any 1 provisions in any ot the acts ol Congress in relation to crimes committed an hoard ships of war of the U.States. 1 My remarks on this point fail into two general heads. I I Will show that this nnrt nf tKu nuiclnn waa nnl oallu.l frt by the case presented, and theroiore forms no part of the judgment of the court, and in the next place, that if what is said in the latter part of the opinion were really a part of the judgment ol the court, it would not bear on the question now un ler discussion, or at least it would not decide it. 1 do not deny that it would have some hearing on it, because it belongs to a kindred question. It will be necessary to bring before the attention of the court briefly the particulars ol the case referred to. Bevins was indicted for murder, alleged to have been committed on board theU Slates ship "Independence,"then lying in the harbor ol Boston, in waters of sufficient depth tor vessels to float, with free egress to the ocaan. There werd various head' lands, however, within which these waters lay, end it 1 was contended on the part of Bevins that the harbor oi I Boston, in which the vessel lay , was not out of the juris1 diction of any particular State, but on the contrary inthjurisdiction of the State of Massachusetts?and under this statement of facts the question occurred which was subm it ted to the Supreme Court for decision. First, whether > In the sworn statement cf facts the oftence charged in the I indictment was within the jurisdiction of the State of Massachusetts or any court thereof, a-id secondly, whether it was within the jurisdiction ot the Circuit Court ot 1 the district of the State of Massachusetts? These two questions were discussed at great lensth by very eminent ami able counsel; nud Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. He answers thu secoud question in the negative, and shows that the s?c- I tion ol the law of 1790 describes the olfence as being committod out of the jurisdiction ot any State?it is not the offence committed but the place in which committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of any State. He goes on to show thnt Congress has not exercised all the power on this point, which might have been exercised consistently with the provisions of the Constitution, hut that t'hey hovelimi ted the jurisdici ion of the Circuit Court to offerees com. milted out ot tno jurisdiction 01 any particular Mate; and he then comet to the conclusion that this part ot Boston harbor was not out of the jurisdiction of the State of Massachusetts, ami having come to that conclusion,that it was not within the jurisdiction of theCircuit Court. Now this was a lull and distinct answer to the second question, which Involved the first ; and when these questions were thus answered the duty of the Supreme Court ended, and with the duty ended also the authority. The rest that follows is plainly ohitnry, and was introduced as an answer to anargument oll?r?d by the Attorney (Jeneral. If the Court will look back to the argument of Mr. Wirt, the Attorney Oenpral, it will be found that he introduced the argument that as the oftenen was committed on the deck of a United State* shipofwar, it came within the designation of the statute. That argument was not called lor by the question, and therefore the reply to itenn form no part r of the judgmi nt ol the Court. He then goe* on to make the additional remark that there was no navy when the law ot seventeen hundred and ninety was passed, and that afterwaids ihere w?s no jurisdiction in that respect ' given to the Court* of the United States. If that be taken in its natural interpretation, the Chief Justice would be 1 made to say that even the luw of 1900 did not make any provision for the punishment ot crimes committed by persons belonging to the navy. Whereas that very law to which we refer does contain a provision securing the punishment ol the crime ol murder when committed by a person belonging to a United States shipofwar. But it will t>e said that the Chief Justice did not regard a navnl Court Martial as a Court of the United States. Can we impute such nn absurdity to the Chief Justice? Is not a Court Marrtal as much a Court of the United States when authorixed by Congr. ss, as the Circuit Court or the 8u. ' premo Court itself? II not a Court of the United States, how can it try an offence growing out of the peculiar jorisprudence of the United Stales? Was the Chief Justice ignorant of that 2lst article ol the rules and iegulations for t>>e government of the navy ? Why the learned Re portei supposes that he was really ignorant of it, and has Increased the difficulty which belongs to the inconsiderate language ol the Chief Justice, in the note whieh he has 1 appended to this part of the opinion. Now thesolution of this whole matter will simply be found in the limitation of the Chief Justices' remarks to the argument which he was answering-, and if these remarks lie limited to that argument, which in all justice and fairness they should he, then It will be found thattheChief luitice has advanced nnthlntr root raw to our doctrine: for what is the argument 1 which he wns nnawiving? That the deck of a shipol war was a place, a locality within the meaning ot the tth section hy which oflence* arc defined, not according to their 1 intrinsic character and grade, but by the mere Im ot their being committed on a aoil over which tba United Statin I had excluaive jnriadiction; and although the language of ' the aection win auch, was evidently meant to apply to > otfencea committed on ttrra firma, yet Mr. Wirt intro' duoca thia new idea, that although Boston harbor was not ' the high seas, out of the jurisdiction of any particular Stale, hut a bay within the jumdiction of the Unit ad state*, vet that the deck of the Independence waa like a fortor artenal?a place or district of country, within the ' excluaive jnriadiction of the United States! Now the 1 Chief Justice in reviewing that argument, and in that 1 connexion he says?" why 1o thia very day Congress has ' never made provision lor the punishment of any crime C committed in a ship ol war whetever it may he stationed," I untuning evidently?for if otherwise it has no rsfercnoe to I theargument. and ai Mr. Wheaton has shown, would ' have been erroneous?that Congress, down to th it day, had made no provision for any offence* committed on the r dtck of a nhip of tear, by express terms, describing tha' deck as the locality where the oflence wa? committed And so, if the Court olease, to this very day, the wotds ' if Chief Justice Marshall maybe held to be correct, at 1 least with regard to murder and some other offence* For although the eighth section is broad enough to in p elude ctimes of this description, whether committed on a hip or on a bout, yet Congress hat never defined thani; 1 hy assigning the deck as the locality. Out on the contra' rv, the description has reference to the waters on which ' ine vessel lies, ami not the character of the part ot the ' vessel in which the crime is committed. Our doctrine is? p not that the law ot 1790, by express word* declare, that p mu dor on the deck of the brig Homers, but that theoli'ence ' it murder committed on the h seas, not in the jurlsdio I 1 ion of any particular State, but within the Admiralty ind Marine jurisdiction of the United States, hy any pei 1 ?oo who o* < allegiance to the United States, and Is mb . ject to tin ir Government, I* both to ho indicted and pre. senti,d in tha Circuit Court of the United Htatas, no matter where the Veasel may be, ao that it be on the high seas, ut of tha Jnriadiction of any particular State, ami so that RK E >RNING, MARCH 13, 184 the individual owe* thin allegianceto the United State*.? And that no such dnuh; a* has been supposed to have existed in the miml of ths Chiel Justice, did exist then, may

tie inferred from the fact that Mr. Webster, who appeared for the pr.(oner, and made oneot thv ablest argument* to be found in any of Wheaton's r-iport?, never took tip the objection tnat the law ol I7'.KJ, under which hi* client was indicted, and might lose his lile, -did not apply toollencea committed iu a public armed vessel ot the United State*. And I cannot believe that he would have omitted an objection lying at the very threshold of the case, if there had bee.i any force or propriety in it. I therelote humbly submit that when this objection was out taken tiv this Counsel, and such Counsel, that the opinion of the I (eliiet Justice must lie confined strictly to an answer to the . argument of the Attorney General, or else he falls into grievious error,that it is against the laws of interpretation that ha intended to express the opinion which some who have written on the subject would seem to argue. The authorities showing that the opinion of the Judge is to he strictly limited to the record,are numerous and sufficiently well known to your Honor. I cannot doubt that if this question shall ever go to the Supreme Court oi the United States, that the language in which the Chief Justice expressed himself, in the case of Cow.in against the U. States, (8 Wlieaton, ;W j?10J,) will he repeated in regard to these remarks at the close of this opinion, an I that the question will he regarded as being as open to discussion, as if these remarks had never been made. We suhmit then, that in the true eonsti uctiou ?1 the act of 1791), it does extend to murder and other felonies committed on board a United Siates ship, in the circum-tancea described in the section. If this he tnetrue construction of ihe law of 1790 and if there can he no question, as 1 presume not, as to the constitutionality of Congress in passing such a law, the only r maining question is, whether they have varied tiy subsequent legislation the provisions of this act of 1790 1 The subsequent legislation consists ol the acts 1800 and 18-J3, which provide lor the better regulation of the navy?3d Dutne & Uioron, 331 ; and 1-t of Story, -rat mm,., oi mi ..... ;..i? ,.r . i... ...iin .?.. .l,.. "" " "V.g ui , ,4,c nuu i iu. ...u government of the navy provide* that th? ci iine of murder, when committed Uy an officer, marine or seaman belonging to any ve-sel of the United States, without the territorial jurisdiction of the lame, may he punished with death by the suntence of a Court Martial. As to this, I remark in the first place, that it is not mandatory but merely permissive?"may be punished," not "shall be punished " My nsxt remark is, that this section gives the Court Martial jurisdiction to try the offence of murder, when it has been committed out of the territorial Juris diction of the Unite! States, by a trial out of thejurtsdic tion of tlfe United States. This is the interpretation I give to this article. Will the counsel say that 1 interpolate by affixing to it thut interpretation, ami that the section is silent with respect to the place of trial? It will be a fair suggestion ; and your Honor will judge of its weight, and I will a*k them by what right they interpolate this article in regard to the place of trial, that it may be either out of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or within it.' Because in the construction they interpolate iu regard to the place of trial, and a great deal more, too, than I propose to insert. In ether words, this article is silent in regard to too place of trial. It speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the U. States expressly in reference to thedefinition of the offence, which must,it declares,be committed without that territorial jur sdiclion It savs nothing whatever of the tilace where the Court Mar tial into sit and try the offence. But in a former part of my argument, I have shown that in regard to all crimes and otf. nr.es known to the common law as crimes, contradistinguished from military offences, that of course then lor all felonies on the high seas, provision is snude by the Constitution itselt, that they shall be tried by a jury, and ajury of the district wherein they were committed, and it otherwise Congress shall then provide a place of trial, and this place is fixed to he the District of the U. States into which the offender shall first be brought. And I here refer to a'l the considerations which were before addressed by me to the Court, in regard to the interpretation of the provision of the Constitution, that the Court should construe this article in sunordination to and consistency with those various provisions of the Constitution to which 1 hare already referred the court. And lhat the court must, in order to carry out the great principles of the constitution, give to the*e articles the construction, that not only must the murder have been committed out of the general jurisdiction of the United States, hut that also the provisiou to punish it must also be carried into execution out of tluit general jurisdiction. For remember, this is not only an implied power?one which grows out of the necessity of the case, and there may bo great safety, propriety, and convenience, in authorizing courts martial composed of competent persons, to try persons accused ol murder, while the vessel is yet on the high sens, out of the territorial limits of the United States?yet there is neither necessity, propriety, convenience, nor justice, in permitting such atrial ufter the party has been brought within the territory of the United Stales; because there is already I in full exis'ence, armed with all necessary (rowers, and in which the accused will have all the safeguards provided by the constitution, a court more competent than any court martial can he to try the ca?e There is not one syllable, not one letter, in that article, in relation to the place of trial, and 1 therefore call on this court to limit its construction to the action and decision of a court martial out ot the t. rrisori ll limits of the United States. And in this way vou make the nctrol Congress, and all the provisions of the constitution, perfectly harmonious; you will secure on one side the most perfect exercise of all the summary powers belonging to courts martial, and on the othr- hand secure to the citizen, when the cummin dor or ollicers ef the fleet do not deem it necessary to have atrial before the return of the vessel to which the offender be longs to the Unite I States, all those safeguards which the laws afford him by trial by jury. I therefore submit, ns the trnn construction of this part of the law of 1900, that it really dors not give tho Naval Court Martial any jurisdiction, even concurrent with this Court, and that that tribunal, now sitting in the county of Ivingi, within the territorial limits of the State ol New York, and the Southern District undertaking to try Commauder McKenzie, is, to all iutentsund purpo?es, an illrgal nnd unconstitutional tribunal. And if, con trarytj that expectation, which there is reason to believe is confltently cherished in some quarters, that Court should find a verdict of guilty, I venture to say that the learned counsel of Commander McKenxie would never allow him to sutler the extreme penalty of the law, without raising this very question as to the legality of that tribunal for which lam now contending; ami I sub mil that the true interpretation of this article is that a Court Martial may try a man for murder committed out of the territorial limits oi the United States, provided the trial beheld there; that it is against all the rules of intiir pretation?against the plainest, most explicit, most frequently related,fmostolemn provisions of the constitution?provisions which our fathers were unwilling to Ipave, even under the strong guarantee of the original instrument, hut which they inserted iu these amendments, the very price of t'tje constitution, without which New Yoik, New Hampshire, Virginia, Massachusetts, never would havn absented to that instrument?it is egninst ell these to assign 'o this la w any other interprn tation than that for which we contend I do submit mat ny hum ??s?ni ot i,nmmaii(ier .vie ivnnzie in tnese penning proceedings on the other side of the Last River, that he in bringing into doubt, into serious doubt, exposing *o imminent jeopardy, these most sacred provisions of the Constitution; und we dtsclnim in this argument any imputation that we are en deavoring to oppress or persecute Commander McXcnzie or any ol the persons associated with him on that vessel. On the contrary we stand here on the high ground of public right -nd constitutional liberty, and contend for the inviolable sanctity of one of the most important privileges of American citizenship But if I am not right in this interpretation, at most the Court Martial has merely concurrent jurisdirtl in; docs that take away the jut iadiction of the civil tribunals? Whence has that remarkable and most distinguished of living American Jurists derived the idea, not distinctly put forth, but rather intimated?that the grant of concurrent jurisdiction to an inferior Court, excludes the jurisdiction of the higher Court? Certainly he has adopted the idea without careful examination, for from timeof Lord Coke to this day nothing has been better settled than that the jurisdiction of any Court, and especially of a high Court, is not given away by the conferring of concurrent jurisdiction on an inferior Court. The authorities on this head arc very numerous, and tho point is so well established that f may be excused their citation. But again.it the Act ot 1800 gives concurrent jurisdiction in a case of this kind when the party has been brought within the territorial limits of the United States?which we deny?still we maintain that it is taken awav by the Crimes Law of 183.1, 7th vol. of Laws, Duane St Bioron, p. 397; and 3d Story 1099. The first section to which I refer is the fourth,which provides that "if any person on the high seas, w ithin the admiralty and marine Jurisdiction of the United States, s^all commit the crime of willfnl murder, he shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereol shall sufler death.^ This is substantially a re-enactmcutofthe law o 1700. iiow this section like the 9th section of the law ol 1790, is in the broadest terms, nnd makes the Jurisdiction of the Court depend not on the particular character ol the vassel, whether she belongs to tho National marine or the merchant aery ice,but on ihe actual situation of the vessel at the time when the offence ws? committed. The other provisions ot this act show that the trial is to be in the Circuit Court of the United States. The 1 -4th section makes that nrovisi*n. Now. certainly ihoa^ hrnad terms of this act cover every ease on which the Congress ol the United States, was competent te legislate. Anil unless th" act of I "On, doe* (five jurisdiction to a Naval Court Martial to try this oftnnce after the party has been brought into the United States, and unless that act still remains in force, notwithstanding the broad terms of the act of I8-J8, this sertion covers the whole case and gives the jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of the United States. This law ol IHiA must bo regarded as exclusive of any previous legislative provision, unless that provision be preserved. Now, there is no reservation here ef the power of a Naval Court Martini. And to show that Congress whilst enacting this law remembered that in 18 >0. rules and articles fur the re gulation ot the navy had been made, it provides that if an) person shall maliciously setjonflre or otherwise destroyon) ship or * easel ol warol the United States, out of th< pirisdiotlon ol any particular Hta e, shall he considered guilty of felony, and so punished, provided nothing in this ection shall be construed to take aw.iy the right of Cour Martial, as heretofore provided. I would also take the liberty of remarking that the opinion that this provision up plies to the whole act, is in my humble judgment, a i islake. If this provision had been ut the end ot thu law in a section by itself, then I would agree that ttie whole law excepts the jurisdiction oi Courts Maitial. But this provi sion is not so placed, it is a provision simply? something of a solecism, but sulticiently expressive of the truth. It ,s a provision annexed to the I llh tertian, and not to any other. rheCot aT.?If I recollect the terms of the opinion, it has not any bearing on the point that a provision was necessary to retain the jurisdiction Mr. Butls a proceeded-I am very hanpv to receivs that int> rpretation of that part of the opinion. There is i another section of this law, page 401, which expressly op. plies to vessels belonging to the United States. The mh | section also relates to vessels, whether belonging to the I [ERA: :3. United State* or to r it >/. u. It h.u been suggested hero, and wo assented to it us true in point of lact, that Commander McKenzie is now upon trial before a Court Marti il sitting in Brooklyn, on the very etiunte contained in the complaint made to this grand jury ; and in relation to that, ami in order to show that that court has no jurisdiction, I remark, that although it is a settled luw, a* Chancellor Kent has remark-el, that you may plead in civil yet lie is mistaken in supposing that that rule applies in u criminal case. Ami as the experience of that distinguished j Ju?tKe? siuce tie leltthe bench has not been very extensive I inciiminiil cases, it is not at all extraordinary, perhaps, that he should have lallcn into thia error, tor an error 1111 doubt dly it ia Nothing ia better settled in the crimli al law than the principle that you cannot plead in abatement another indictment pending lor the same oil-nee, even although that other indictment be in the very same court. Until thn other indictment pusses into u judgment i ither of acquittal cr conviction, it cannot oe pleaded. In this respect the rule i? different in criminal courta from that which obtain* in civil courts. (1 Chitty'x Criminal Law, 44tt ) The caaea referred to by Mr Chitty sustains the principle to the fullest extent? pages 459-9 4Gi 3. There ia no rule ia practice better settled than that?nor doea thn provifon in the 5th amendment of the Constitution ol the United States?"not shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for lite or limb." apply to a case of pending trial. Haw kins *Jd book, 35 ch Black-tone, 4tli vol, 355. In the construction given to this same provision by a decision of the Supreme Court of the U States it has been held nnd is perfectly settled that the party shall not lie tried the second time for the sanio olfcnce alter he has been once convicted acquitted by the verdict of ajitry, nnd judgment been p isse I It has always been held not to apply when a jury has been discharged witliout agreeing, or when judgment has been arrested. The case of Giodwin against in IHtn Johnston, 1H?, is in p .int. The defendant was tiied for murder, the jury could not agree, und w ere discharged? yet he was afterwards brought hv the District Attorney the trial. Tne objection was raised that he had iilreudy been ti i?*?l and put jn Jeopardy ol his life, and that oi jection waa very t toroughly discussed by the moat eminent counsel then at the bar, and in that caan the Supreme Court rulad that the party had not previouily been put in legal Jeopardy. The aame doctrine baa been held by the Cirauit Court* of the U. Stutea, ol PhiladelpUia and Boaton 4th of Hawkins' Circuit Court Report*?U. Statea againat Hdskett, 31 vol., Story p OdO, fee. 17S1, 9 Wnnaton il9, U. State-; against Petera, may bn referred to in connexion with those I before cited, ahowing you cannot plead a pending indictment in abatement in a criminal case. I .lull next refer to case* ahowing that the proceedinga in the fiist cuae muat have been free from error in order to prove a bar to a second trial, Hawkina, Book 3, ch?Sec.9, 1 Cbitty ,453-64 68-62 till, and one ol tho oldest cases, William Vuux's case, 4th Coke's lb-ports 44; ao that it is impossible lor Comman 'or McK. n/ie to plead the pendency ol'these proceedings in abatement until alter tliey have gone into judgment; and then the question will come whether it was by a Court of rightful jurisdiction and authority, or the question may he raised on a demurrer to hia plea. I quote Irom the decision* of the Supreme Court the case of flood win, page 9(13 of Hawkins, where it is said expressly if an error lias entered into the judgment, it will be ho bartothe second trial. And this is accordant with reason. Kor whilst the principle, a very juat and sacred one, that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for his life, is true, ?et if the former trial was an erroneous one, if the Court bad no jurisdictoin, he ought not in reason any more than in law, to be exempt from a trial In fore a competent Court, on alawlul charge. And in regard to the peculiar constitution of that naval court martial, it is to he observed that the proceed ings of a court martial do not necessarily issue in judgment one way or the other as those of civil courts, because they are subject to the revision of the Secretary of the Navy, and of the Presideu*. So that rum con tint, if there have been any error in the proceedings or difference of opinion in regard to the resuh, tliera may be a withholding of the approbation of the executive authority At all events we must see the end of that proceeding before it can be rightfully set up as an objection to the jurisdiction of tho Circuit Court of the United States. And on the uihj?ct of jurisdiction 1 will take the trouble of adding that there is no undue presumption in thu assumption that there is iloulit with regard to theae questions. Will, if there tie iloutit in regard totlie legal authority of thu Court Martial to try thin casp, then I do submit that that is a reason why the Circuit Court should take. cognizunco of thu case, so far at least as was suggested yesterday by thu Court, ns in thu West Point case. The Court hud doubts as to its Jurisdiction to inquire into that case, but it instructed the Grand Jury to And the bill, for the very purpose of ohtain ing the solution ot the doubts of the Court by the highest authority , to wit, the Supreme Court ol the United States. Well then, at all events it is a douhtlul question whether this offence can be tried in a Court Martial,or whether it belongs to the Civil Court. It then there be doubt ought it not to he solved by the very highest authority ? Is it not of the greatest importance that it should bo so settled that it can never herealter he called in question ? Is it not important to all persons employed in the navythat it should be settled and definitively setthd ? How can it be settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, unless this Court take cognizanc" of the case, and so permit of its being carried up? II the case be left in ,the Naval Court Mtitial, and no cognizance be taken of it by thu Civil Courts, the doubt remains, unhss the Court Martial be competent to remr ve it, or it be removed by the Executive. And Sir, 1 U c position in uibtah Him ap|maiti? I 'nrsvi ars placed in opposing the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and that in our country, where it is a grand principle t'.at the Civil Courts are supreme over the Military !? Our object, for I avow it as the true abject of my learned assoc. la e and myself in the proiessinnnl attention we have given to the sill ject, has been, to bring this subject bolore that tribunal, whose august authority, whose profound knowledge ot the law, whose hold is so strong in the confidence of the people of the United States, that w hen they pronounce their judgment all will be satisfied. Are they afraid to trust their case to the Supreme Court? Is there any ground for sup|iosing that a Naval officer is afraid of having it tested whether lie is to oe tried by the etpril ilu corp$ of his associates, always honorable when kept within proper hounds, but which mus* always he regarded hy the people ot the United States as operating, even unwittingly, in a manner prejudicial to impartial justice? Aretbeie not, 1 insist, reasons of the strongest policy, essential to the maintenance of justice itself, that this ca?? should he disi>osed of in such a way as will bring it before the hirhest tribunal ol the country? And i such a course can betaken in futljaccordaiicpwith the usual prac tic*,why should it not he taken? I believe that I can appeal to tome who now hear me, of great experience in criminal c.iaei, as well as to the English atrhorities, in vain, for a case in which serious doubt was entertained of the propriety of bringing in * bill in this way, in order to test the jurisdiction of the Court. Your instructions to bring in a bill, cannot be reviewed. But I submit that in accordance with general practice, and fur the reasons I have stated, that the Grand Jury be instructed that they should find a bill, to the end that the objections to jurisdiction of this Court may be distinctly presented and cariied in au thcntic form to the Supreme Court, where they rosy receive a solemn and a final decision. 1 have now finished all I have to say respecting the general argument, so far as it relates to Commander McKenzie Bnd the crime ol murder with which he stands charged. I have, however, a few observations to #id with respect to the chi rge ol I manslaughter. Mr. Cleveland has preferred the charge of manslaughter against Commander McKenzie anil Lieut. Oanswoort. all ging it to huve been committed in the putting to death of F.lisha Small. We submit that the only Court having jurisdiction over the crime of manslaughter, committed on the high seas, is the Circuit Court of the United States. The act of 1700, section 12, distinctly provides for manslaughter, by that name, on the high seas ; and in the act ot 1800, establishing rules and regula'lons for the government of the navy, there is no provision made for the crime of manslaughter. These rules for the government nf the navy were copied, almost verbatim, from the English code?the 22d of George II. The '28th section of the English tulcs provides for the citme of murder, to which the Court will tind an easy reference in Tompkins' Diction ary. The thirJ article provides that if any ofheer or other person in the Navy, shall be found guilty of cruelty, oppression, fraud, profane swearing, drunken ness or any other scatidolotis conduct tending to the destruction of good morals, shall he, &c. Sic Is homicide of that particular grade, included in these general terms, "scandalous conduct?" I submit not The oltences defined are cruelty, Sic. Sic. Now it may be said that man slaughter is in one sense "scandalous conduct," Certainly it is in a sense, but is it so In a legal sens* 1 Can a man be tried for homicide or manslaughter tinder these words.' If they are broad enough to include homicide of the grade of manslaughter, so ulso nre they broad enough to include murder; and if murder had not been included in another article they might, with c<|tml warrant and authority, have preferred the chartn against him under these words. Ifit had been intended that manslaughter should be tried by Court Martial* would it have been covered up in thoae word* when they could said by a single word that it ahould be tried ? Were thev not bound, if so thev meant it, when manslaughter was a distinct offence by the common law, and by the act ol 1790, to employ the word? Finding that thia common law|livision ofmurd. r into homicide and manslaughter was recognized, woul I it not be against all the rules of interpretation to bring in manslaughter uader these words-, words evidently calcu lated to cover the whole rangp ol senn lalotis I ehsvlotir calculated tu subvert good morals 1 We ask, then, thttin relation to tho ailbje t o( manslaughter. The Of and Jury should be instructed not only that it i* within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. hut that it it tho only Court which ha* jurisdiction over it. Mr. Duan begged to call the attention of Mr. Butler to the general clltnr in the tule* and regulation* of the navy, which provided th'.t till offence*, not previoualy included, are to he tried according to the custom* and usage* of the service. Mr Bi-tlkh proceeded?1 defy the counsel to point out any ra?e in winch manslaughter ha* heen tried by Court* Martial. If reamlanghter he thu* included, all other offence* are likewise; anil in tliia way you come to the ix sition that any otrence committed hy a naval nfficer or seaman i* punlanable only hy Court* Martial; if you once oejfin to carry that section beyond those purely military oft. nee* known to and punished ny the customary lawiol th" navy, there i? no assignable limit at which you are to stop. In relation to Mr. Ganasvoort, I have a word to say. Thu same charge I* preterred against him on the ground that he was a principal, aiding anj abetting in the act* complained of, and that if thoso act* were unlawful, lie is responsible although acting under the command ol Commander McK'n7.in. The general principle on that subject i* well settled, and it i? not necraaary to cater to mthnritlea. I may refer in general to the'case of the People against McLeod, for the principle that the com nansia of a superior offlcecara no excuse to the party who set* in obedience to him. if the command* he unlawlul. I relrr to Oil* case lor a collection et alltlic MktflllM on I he subject. In relation to Mr. Oansevoort, it i* lurlherto I he observed that he i* not on trial helore the Court Mar- I tial. If he were, we suppose for the reaaon* already | 4 LD. Prt* Tin C?nti. stated, that it would not make any difference, But if there be a difference, it is against him, and not in l.ia favor. Wn have admitted that on both cases the Court of Inquiry has passed, and that the Secretary ol the Navy has ordered a Court Martial on one and not on the other. On that inh jpct I have only to say that we hold that the action of the Secretary ol the Navy, as well as the proceedings ot the Court of Inquiiy itself, have nothing to do with the present questions The report of the Court of Inquiry is iu favor of Mr. G?n?evoorf, but it dot s no'exonerate him from this criminal proceeding in this Court, iflhe jurisdiction rightfully belong to this Court. An acquittal by Court Martial, il it has no jurisdiction, wonld not exone rate him. But it is not within our admission, for we do notknov that the Secretary of the Navy has exonerated him, anil ordered no Court Martial In his esse. Mr. Dus a?That is giving the latter and taking away the substance of your admission. Mr. O'Cussoa?Von asked for the Inference, but wa do not admit uny such thing. Mr. Bun u proceeded?But it is yet open to remark that if the exculpatory report of the Court of laquiiy had been lormallv affirmed, which latter fact we could not admit because it is nut known,it is only arrived at bv Inference-, hut even if it were here in so many words, In Mark and white, still it would not slter this case, for the reason that it the Court ot Inquiry did acquit it is no har to a trial before the Circuit Court. It would be illiberal mid harsh lor a Secretary of 'he Navv after the re ception of an exculpatory rejiort which he had affirmed, thus to place the individual on trial heloie a Court Martial. But if I recollect right the provision respecting Courts of Inquiry,makes them neither more nor less ? fficacious than a Grand Jury. But it la not material to go in'o a discussion of this point, because even if Mr. Gansevoort were in the same situation with Commander Mr Ken/.ie, he could not claim exemption trom trial helore this Court, on the ground of the pending proret dings before the Court Martial. I now conclude all that I think proper to advance in tills oneninL' discussion at this stage. 1 he r< mauling remurka which might be offered, can t>? made if necessary with ?(|unl propriety in reply to the opposi'e Counsel. L17 0 IN A CORDIAL; oa THI ELIXIR OF LOVE. In ni.dkn tint., among the Jews, That man a secou'i wife might ehooss? Who * first, by Kate's unkindly doom.'1 Noc ild'm bore to bless his home. A (flirted thin, the Human matron I'ravrd to l.iieine. ihr midwife's patron; F.ifyi'tiui with, in sin h a crisis, ( 'ailed to their aid the Prteats ot Ills; AudeT.il IIOW, the meek Hililno? Warin as her clime, and tender too? If childless iwi Ive nioutns Irom her bridal Kliea weeping to her senseless Idol. And with mned hauila, in accents wild. Petitions Br?inah lor n child ; Kor well she knowa. Love aim ns to hlesa The Hie oobed of barrenness So rnucli for lose in day's by-gone, AudaaTaae custema in our own; rut say, ev n now, Joes Lore's rotnmuoion Bless in our lai d, a sieiile union f No! nft'times cnniugal feltcilv, Is tl ua disturbed?ay, e'en in this city. Vet, may the barren, il they try The tneaua, ''it ctease am' multiply," With "Lute's El is ir" for her trienil, Tin' childleas wife's repinim-a eud. But not the proereatiee fxiwer Alone, is tins E'tiir'a Oower. i 111. :, _m With rigor clothe the impotent: Kupnresa agleel whale'er its date, And ell life i ftinctinni renovate. Eruptions from the skin it (hue!. Auu Initial track beauty and the giaceai 'Tia woman*! truit?mil ne'er deceirri hert from Fluor Alhua it relieve! her; And each diieaie, (with proper care, too,) Her fair LBd fragile form u heir to. There are hut tnulla; who calli th, m Action Hlmll have itern proof in contradiction. Letters?all forma ol alienation? From the aarant of every nation. With limit fill tiuiiivei from all iiuartera, Penned by Diaea-ranri Quackery'a martyn; Thouaauda who lay. with rtuitciug bieath, AliiK'tt wuhiu the lawa of Death, No* in thrii nightly prarrra iet>eat Tha k? to L ile'a friend, in Naaien atreet, Andaomctim-a ti?me the vetv unniher? "Ninety two N-'iau"?even in their alumber; Or.tlic.im rg i fDiieaae'aordeal, Cry out tor toe "LochiaCordial " Peraona ordrriiig lliii medicine Iroin the country, by i< ndmg a remittance, ran have it boxed up and aent to any part of the Union. Price S3 tier bottle, or t24 per dozen. m7 1m*rc it NuLl*iT~?cl l7> WL, HAVANA, ISLAND OF CUBA. CHARLES DUNNE WATERLAND, PRINCIPAL. 'T'HIS Academy waa eatabliahed two yr.ara ago. under llie pal tronege ol :ne former Intended General or the (aland, and other uiaiiniruiaoed indiviatiala of the nobility and merchant! of una city, lie conducted on the plan of the German "rvmnina;" and the metooo ol tnirrou 11 the "interrogative." All the i.-.kolara nndrntnud the Engliah 'inrunge, end many of them peak it habitually and fluently The Principal hai the experience of achoola in France, Germany, England, and the United Stalea. nil chief aim la to live the youth entruaied to hia rare a practical knowledge of uioae h rone liet of a polie education, which are required in all ictive careen, r.ud are applicable to any. The comae of alndy, therefore, cctnnrehenda the. Englith, French, German and '.'.paniih laoguagei; Hiatory.Oeogr* .diiea, Natnrnl lliiloaophy, the practical tart of Mathe ina'.ic.a, and Drawinraof varioua kinds. rrofvKora of divrtr nationa and acquirement! rcaide in tba as:aV>t1ihment; end r.II th- rlaaara reccee, in rotation, inatruetioii from the direo'.or. ranch aietinl ?n.-reaa hoi attended thia clan of tniiion. that a* fr ml r.f the napili, u oiler twelve yrart ol ares, writr and speak wo foreign languages, in a perfectly intelligible manner, and those of riper y-ars, correctly and easily. Tlie acquisition, not only of the Spanish, bat also of other languages, is thus placed within the reach of the youth of the LsiteiT Prates, without ita being necessary for them to relinquish the many ndvnntaees which accrue from anEngliah education The object of the Principal in desiring to receire youths from the United States, it to facilitate the acquirement of the Kngiiah accent for hia Spanish pupils, which aerriee would be donhly repaid them by by the latter, and to introduce here the tr.auly epiritof the English eehoole. The yanns.eidtens of the tfuitril StMeti in havs nothing to fear from the eliaiate, tnr house being spaciont and airy, (mated ia a healthful ipol, at a short dia:ance fr..rn the city; and containing within ita 'unit*, a one bath and complete qymnasiura for the preaerrntian ht the pnrils' health. Two youths, lately arrived from (iennany, have parsed the summer in the aeoool in perfect health. Aa 'he priHeipal ia a married man, and l.ia wife and aiatnr have wa' ye of the junior department *. children are received n any ottaat of infancy ' Every pnpfl enjoye hia religiona opinions uadiatnrbed. 1 ur terms ire $400 per arnorc, payable three months taut a. There are noemat eveept elorhev and boobs. Ra'ereuqev?MESSRS. CHAH DRAKE A BROTHER*. ALEXANDER MffKALKS. EHQ . Havana liONLMrrN Ainu uA.-.crthnThlv. INDIA RUBBER GOODS. UPHOLICSALE AND RETAIL. No. I Wall atreet. Th *" subscriber has teceived and nffere for tale a large assort* Dent of iuirorted India Rubber Water Proof Uooda, vir.: Coats and Capes, of superior Lam*. Cashmere Lama, Persian. Marino and Cotton, of all colors and sixes. Cloth?India Rubber. Water Proof, super Larra. Lama Pa*rian and Cotton, pre paged for trilora. India Rubber Webbings fur suspenders, cornets, ke. -'0 Om'r CHAB. ABBAHAMSON. AUAMB k CO.'ri NEW YORK AND NEWARK fc/Q PRESS?'The public are respectfully informed that i a iiibscribera hare eatahlished an Express between New Vo ft and Newark, N. J., for the tranjinisaiou and speedy deliver f of imek.igra, hnudler, money, ke. ke.; the collection of not .* mil bills, and all other business appertaining to an ETpterns Orders for articles to be returned by the Express will a felivrrrd free of charge. Office iu New York at No. T Wall street, and in Newark, at SMITH'S Newspaper Depot, No. 120 11 road at. L-ave New York at 11X A. M. and 4lf P. M. Leave Newark at 9 A. >). and IX P* M. dlkce ADAMB ACQ OA. A H 1 i N ' St CASH TAILOaiNR ESTABLISHMENT. 1A4 fv illittm Street, Corner of Jinn Street, [S der.tUdlr the chenirest in the rtty. There ia alwaya oa hand atele i tatock of aeaaonable goods, purchased for cash, which will bit made np to order iu the style of make. fit. trimming, ke., th i has giren such general satisfaetioa during the I.tat foor year (.and at a positive saving ol 2a ner cent. Oeutlenieii are requested to call and trnraint. Those whs famish tVrir i wn goods, can h.tve them MADE AND TRIMMED. Dress firsts. made and trimmed, *$7 H u It H Brock Coats, do do ! 00 to 9 50 Pants and VasU,-?? 1 T5 to I 00 Over lb-as. DC to 11 CO T7~ Tertaa?Cash ondeliTsry. ivIOlrn^ MICHAEL E. MARTIN DEAk NEH8 CUKKD-HCARP VS . AOOUSTIC OIL? Eor the cure of Draliieas, Pains, and the iliaehaiges of matter frotn the Kara. Also, ail rlrotc unagreeable noises like the homig of insects, fating of water, whirring of steam, ke lie which ate s> momma of approaching deafness, and also g-nemlly attendant with thedisease. Many persons who have been deaf f.ir ten, fifteen, and twenty years, ami were obliged to use ear lininpels, have, after using ooc or two bottles, thrown aside their trumiajts, being made perfectly wall, Physicians and insgeaiis higniv re-ommend its use. "sad the following editorial from the Timet DrAFisats Cured ?We have heard a rrvat many speak of ,k- nf Acoustic Oil as remedy for Deafness. and wort assured that it ' onaunmsaed hy anything known for the pnrpcte. One or two instances of its earatire effects bare oeeri iromlrd out 10 a., aid they are really astonishing. ? Pre im red by Dr. D Brll, md sold 011 agency, 306 Broadway, Vew ViO Pr.ee ? > nc? hn't'e fJI la DO ,\(JI Dr.SPA/H ? AM who hare been 10unfortunateas to contract a ceit-in prirate disease, and hare become rvrary Willi iiucriaiug ettorla to reatoie themaelrea to health and Imp inosr, but had met with bnter diaaiipoiiitment in erery inedn no' that 1 romia?d the deaircd effect, can now take coor ?ge and look lorwatd w th confidence to .1 perfect and speedy rratoratiou ol all their energies. Dr. ThonMs' Specific Pills hate nctrr yet failed to lire the moat ay arated and protracted esses of Gonorrhoea. < llerl.or Stricture, and they will certain * ly cure a remit esse of a mild kind iu thirty-an hura. Their Pilla are ei|nal y beneficial lor cither aea, mild and certain in their rff-eta, icin iviint like a charm all the item ,.f diaeaai f in the ay item and leatinc the ennstitnti in mail t>ie strength and rigor of unblemished youth. Price $1 |>er boa Ageata at V East Broadw ly, 71 and ICO Pulton at , and J7j Broadway, ccr.rei C amb no n l la'r i"tlUA W A I'K K?BH K W EH Y ? Orders for supplying Bo 0 da Water the euiuiug season will be receited at No. 1(1 Bleecker itreet. Brewing premises to let with futures, cobiiating ol boilers, rata, mill, 1 ninpt, ?cc. A good aitu itioa for the Hoot Beer holiness Apply is shore ITt !? r A rCMtH. UI.OCK*. ANDREW KI.KY, repaiiea in the heat manner and warranted, much lower than.at aay otherptaea in the city, at O. C. ALLEN'S, Importer ol Watehea and Jawely, wholeaa e and retail, ?tf Im'r ? Wall street. anstaita. 'PHK LATE CaPT iHA MOODY-BhoaMthwmmttha 1 eye of the legal heira ef the abore named, they may hau of something to their adraniage by calling on the an bee n be r, U Kami Mirks Place, New York, ml 2w'r L. DC KCTHEBT HI.EACHOU POWDaBU?Its casks, now I an . uig frowi hip Kon'iua, and for tale by fHec Pr.MH3K h BUOOKi.'I Liberty at MAI' H BOX BOARDS.?senn pen inks, just receised so for sale hy rKKaiF. * BHOOKS, " C at t.ibertr at |JA * I I' D auptrhed with lee Cream and Jelly, >a tonus, at 1 air ahilimga pcgqairt, hy IM i| TEABK h ON. < risioa all

Aynı gün çıkan diğer gazeteler