Newspapers / The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, … / May 18, 1809, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
- 's " ' ! .,''-' '" ' ,-" f t-zzj ' -'"' ' -i ' " X ' . .- F . . n-nLI. PUBLISHED (weekly) BY WILLIAM BUlfLAN. v. Twy DOLL n ah f until Pyat in a, xume RALEIGH, (n. c ) THURSDAY, MAY , 1 809. ) No. -685." U States l'5 OLMSTE AD's CASE. of the United States Pennsylvania district, -April session la f . Wndhincrfon and Peters. , preset J s Mkhad Bri?htt James Atxmson, Charles Westfall, Abraham Ogden, Charles Hong, ' William Cole, Samuel Wilkins, Daniel Phyle, John Knipe. .... Tiuhr'.. delivered the oninion 01 me tuui i. i :..;Kfh macrnitnrfe of the aues -.oci'U W Ul l"x -- ---- , ha7ebeen discussed, we ' could .v ..rj..i:i ... - aii toore ume wucuuciaw up and lot an oppunuuuy w wuimu 2 the opinion which we nave lormeo, I:. i(t:j llilfC uwvw w... " . ... yqu. aim less susmic wi ""B i:..,.ni bv others. But we could not UOUf" , . ., f ihe Ch.'i'ge wunoui ucuig jguiuy ui ,nnLiv of suffering the jury to sepa- jterthe arguments of counscj were clos .f L-PfDinl' them together until Mon- .fcaMshin which we couici not mint oi .. ... i t.n ...i fi,.. lJ'"t . ,u T to state to you, m c Lv not be improper, in the first plae, Lsh your minus with a short history of mwctiotis wnicn nave icu .u tnc uucuti; which these deienciaiits are cnaigea ; . nlc hirh! mio-ht have litpn 10 C0llsC4Ucirvw , -...... ...-0... r.. Usimuortto the nauon deon Olmstead and three others, having I i I . 1 .. aT i V raw mr Gilpin li into the nanus ui vns uuniijj Iailer part of the year 1778, were pjHTon iihfslooo Active, at Jamaica, as prison Ef war i in order to be conducted to New whither this vessel was destined with suj fur the liviush troops. ; lrin'ii the voyage,' 0 mi stead and his com Ins,, who had assisted in navigating the I'f'drmednhe bold design ot taking her ttweoemv; in .vhich, with great hazard iicmselves, they ultimately succeeded. il' confined in the cabin the pHjcers, lagers, and most of the men, tht-y steered bme port m the UnittU -btates, and had lvittiin five miles of Egg harbour, when Lin HoUitbn, coinmahding-.-'the brig Gon ial, bc'onghig to the state of Pennsylvania, iipw'uh tiiem and captured the Active ni t l.l . nil iize. Kie sloop was conciucieu 10 rnua- na, and libelled in Uie court ef admiralty , liiiilied under au act of the legislature ol aims were filed by Olmstead and his as- Ites, for the TV hole of the vessel and cargo, If -Juraes Josiali, commaadev of a pii- lamed vessel, which was in sight at the pi the capture by Houston, for a proper- pl'ihe prize. Deposi tiona were takea in jury was empannelled., to try it. The tiou of fact was, .whether the enemy was llcttly subdued or not,y Olmstead and I mp-aiiwns, ai tne time wnen captain pion came un with thern. The jury, put sibling a single fact, found a genera -t tor one turtli to Olmstead and his rates, and the residue to Houston and lij.tp. be -divided according to law and -o ;tcmeut l)ttvvcen them. From the,sn- : ot uie court upon this verdict, Olmicau ped to the court of appeals in prize cases ;UjIilu by congress, where alter a hear- the pat ties the sentence f the admiral lurt was reversed ; this whole prise de- wine apDclluntg, and process was di- 1 to isstie horn the'eourt of admiralty, 'landing the marshal, to sell the vessel urgo, and jto pay, ever the net proceeds l.e .claimants. The judge of the court I'TUhtiry refused to acknowledge the juns- ' - ....... V ; L j V 1 1 I V 11 i!i Hie interior court ; directed te mar- o inukt-Uae sole and to bring the. pro-' V court.,, -This was doive ; a iiicf tin I"' c!uio'vledged the'Fece'ipt of tlie money, marshal's return. H Mav 1779, Geo. b th:! D l WH W w w-l Hill Mv j "tdovertoDAvid RVutnhouse, treasuilr j' s state, -11,496 in loan office r-wes issued jirhis'own name, heing the hUon of The piizo money to vAugh the tnuued by the sentence ot the mfe- court of admiralty. Riitenhouse at the F time fv--,,i i , jj r IviiiV'ivs, executors Sec. to restore p' so paid in case Ross should, by due law. he cnmnrUwl tn nnv thp sann "U'S to the decvc& of the court of anneals. r r.jnai;ion tl.;a lnM. th nMi.r.r i 6'5 ht'mtr veasuver of the state i and ,s !-itcd ns having been paid to him : ' 'isi of the state. Indents were issued; " !atlu on the aTiove certificates, and r cre afterwards fimdeV in the 'name oi e.Lse tor the benefit of those why might r -nnouse, these cenifiei'tes tocether with ' ltleH thereon which had beta received, came to the hands of Mrs. Sergeant, and Mrs.. Waters, his representatives. THe paper which covered the certificates was endorsed in the hand writting of Mr. Rittenhouse with a memorandum declaring that they will be the property of the state of Pennsylvania when the state released .him from the bond he had given to George Ross, judge of the admiralty, for paying the SO original certificates into the treasury as the state's share- of the prize. po such reiease ever wasjietven. The certi c ... - y. . . representatives of Rittenhouse, Olmstead filed his libel against them in the district codrt of Pennsylvania, praying execution of the de cree of the court of appeals. Answers were filed by these ladies : but no claim was inter posed nor "any suggestion-made of interest on the. part ot the state, and m Jan. 1803, the courbdecreed in favor of the libellants. Oh the 3d of April in the same year, the leg'is Uture of Pennsyfvania passed a Uw authoriz ing the attorney-general to require Mrs. Ser geant 8c Mrs. Waters to pay into thg treasury' the money acknowledged by them in their answer in the distiict court to have been re ceived, without regard to the' decree of that court ; and in case they sihoukl refuse, that a suit should Ue instituted against them in tie name of thecommon wealth, for the sal monies. The governor was ulio required to protect the just rights of the state by any further measures he might deem necessary ; and also to protect the persons and properties of those ladies fiotn any process which might issue out of any federal court, in consequence of their, obedience to this requisition ; and further should give them a sutlicient instru ment of indemnification in case they should pay the money to the state. No further pro ceedings toot place in. the district court, for s nie time af.er the passage of this law.--' A?id wnen at length an application was made lor process of execution, the judge of that court, vuh a very commendable degree of prudence, : declined oideriug it ; with a view-to tnjug be tore the supreme court of the United Slates a question so delicate in itself,--am.l which was likely to produce the most seiious consequen ces to the nation. Upon the appbea ion of Olmstead, the supreme couit issued a man damus to the judge of the district court, com manding him to execute the sentence pro nounced by him in that case, or to shew cause to the contrary. The reasons for withhold ing the process assigned in answer to thb writ, not being deemed sumcient by the su preme court, a peremptory mandamus. was awarded. It may not be improper liere to stale, that no person appeared in the supreme court on the part of the state, or on that of Mrs. bcrgeant and JYlrs. W aters, and uat - ... , . t no arguments were ottered on tm; part ot Olmstead. The idea which 1 understand has gone abroad, that the mandamus was a- warded upon the tingle opinion ot the cruet justice, is too aosura to ctserye a serious re- lQtation. No instance of that son tvtr did or could occur, and in this particular case i do not recoil, ct that there as one dissentient from the opinion roaourced. - Process of execution having been awardec by the judge of the district court in obaiicjice to the mandamus, the defendant, G.-neral Michel fright commanding a brigade J?f the riiittwriof iliecomj.onwealih ol lnn&ylvania, received orders from the governor of the state " Immediately to have In readiness su.h a portion of the militia Under his command as might be necessary to execute the orders, mid to employ them to protect and defcV.i th-s persons and property of the said Elizabeth Sergeant and Esther 'atrs from and against anv'Urocess founded on th'r atlecrec of the suid Richard Peters, , judge 6f the district court of the United States aforesaid ; and in virtue of which any officer under the direction of any court of the United States may attempt to attach the -persons apcl property of the sa-:d Elizabeth Sergeant and Esther Waters." A " guard was accordingly placed at . Vie uses of "Mrs. '.Sergewt and . Mi s. .Wiffe, upon lheTverdict of a jury ; and 2dly, because the state cf Pennsylvania claims an interest in the subject "which was in controversy in the district courtt . . " ' The first question is, vas. the decree of the court of appeals void for want of jurisdic tion of the case in vvhich it was made? But first let me a?k, can this be made a question, at the present day, before this, or any other court in the United Slates ? We consider it to be so firmly settled by the highest judicial ficates thuremainingln the possession of the"! authority in the. nation, "that it is not now to- be' questioned -or shaken.' The power of the court of appeals to re-exa i ine and reverse or affirm the sentence of the courts of admiralty established by the different states, though founded upon the verdht3 of juries, was first considered and decided in the case dfTJoan and Penhallovv, in the supreme court of the United States. The jurisdiction of that court tore-examine the whole; cause as ..to' both law and fact, was considered as resulting frojn the national character of an appellate rize court, and not frm any grant of power by the state from whose court the appeal had been taken. The rigt of the state to limit the court of appeals in the exercise of its jurisdiction, was determined to be totally inudmisible.. The same quea.ioa was considered by the supreme court upon the niotion for the .mandamus, and dscided to bp settL-d and at rest, (f it were iKicessiry to give further support Jo the au thority of these cases, the opinion of the su preme court of Pennsylvania in Ross's execu tors, vs, Hittenhouscj and the unanimous o pinion ot the old congress, with the exception of the represent! ivij of this stale, and one of the representatives of New-Jersey might be mentioned, l! reasons were required to strengthen the above decision, those assign ed by the committee of congress, upon the easy of the Active, are believed to be concluj sive. yand it has been fully proveo, aiui is actmiuea, that the defendants, wiuh a full knowledge of the character of the marshal ofjh.is district, and of his business,- his commission and the process which he had to execute having been read to them, opposnd, with muskets and bayonets, the persevering efforts of that ofneer to serve the wijtf.; and byVuch resistance pce vented him ftoin4 serving it. - There is 'no dispute about the facts The defendants have called no witnesses and their defence Is rested upon fhe. lawfulness of the acts laid in the indictment They justify their conduct upon 'two grouHds 1st. That the decree of the district court under which the process rssued was coram nw Jit dice, and to dl intents and purposes void and 2dly. That though it were a Valid and binding decree, Estill that they ccnot be'questioned criminally for acting in obedience to th orders, of the governor of this state. , . j '"' .' The decree of JLhe district court is sajn to be void, for two reasons ; first, because thef: 'coartoTappeals had not a pawer to reverse the sentenw of the court of adiuiraliy founded y But I think it will not be difHcult to prove that the law of Pennsylvania passed on tlie 9th of September, 1773, establishing "apouh of admirakry in that state, neither fciy the terms of it, nor by a fair construction of its meaning, wan intended to abridge the juris diction ot the court of appeals in cases like the one und r consideration. The words are, " that the jury shall be sworn or affirmed to return u true veidict upon the libel according to, evidence ; and the finding of the jury shall estauluh the facts without re-examination or appeal.' The; obvious meaning cf this pro vision vvas, that if the. jury found the facts upon which the law was to arise, those foits werej;to be -considered as concllnive by Ok appelate court, and not open to Ire examina tion by the judges of that court ; . the legisla ture thinking it, no cloultrniost safe i i in trust the finding ef facts to a jury of twelie men. ' But what was to be clone, if the jury fpund no facts, as waqi the present case ? II the i.:.pellaie court were precluded from an enquiry into the foes afl'iiinanct7)f the sen tence appealed from would be inevitable. Thi ab-.u,ui!y then followed In ell dues was necessary to inpam:el a juiy to estdblish the fai.ts, and in cU closes, without eXcepiimir the party thinking luir.stif 'aggrieved might appeal. But irt every caue where the jury choose to ful l a gentr d verdiat, the sentence appealed from mut ..of necessity be affirmed.' 1 canno? believe that this w:as the meaning -of the legislature; and I do not thi ok that the words... of 'the law will 'fairly warrant such a const rnction. Let me then p?.t thjs question seriously to the jury : Will they have'the vanityo think themselves wise ; than all those who have L parsed opinions upon this in portant question f of lano ? and will they undertake: to decide that these opinions were erroneorrs ? Miisra bJe indeed must be the condition of that com munity when? the law h unsettled, and deci sions upon the very point are disregarded when they again come directly or incidentally, into difcussiou.. In such a state of things good men h?.ve nothing to hope. and. bad men . nothing ' to fear. There is no standard hy which th rights of property, 'and the most estimable pi5ivileges: to twhich the citizen is entitled can b rcgultite. AH is doubt, and Uncertainty UnTil fhe judge has pronounced the fa vv of the particular case before him ; but whudi carries with k no authority as to a simdar case between other parties. Hut suppose for a cVuseht jjsainst (he lettlerl lvy ppn the poinvthat the court of appeals had nol a power to-re-exaniine the verdict f the case of the Active ; and on that account ; that the decree of the district y iurt, in oppesition to the court cf admiralty ". Vas' erroneous, it does not therefore-follow,. that tlie district court had no jurisdiction of the jease ot wTch this process issued. -If erroneous, it could only be: re examined and.. corrected in a suoerior court. But if the sub ject depended upon a question of prize or no prize, it was completely within the cognizance of the "district court by teconstitutio; ' .and the laws ..of the -United States; the forrBer tf jivhich; grantstq the federal courts, and " the latter to; the 'district courts congnizdnce of dil civil fatjfira ef admiralty and maritime juriidic mn This ti nucha case ": and We consider that circumstance to be decisive 'bf the fo st point. We are fcappy on this Occasion, as w4 are on all others to coincide in opinion with the learned, and respectable gentleman w hp i - . t i .'- prcaiues in ine supreme ra;ciary oi uu$ state. . " The next ground of objection to. the juris diction of the district court is, that the state of Pennsylvania claimed an interest in the subject in dispute between the parties to lha$ cause. The amendment to the constitution upori which this qwestion occurs, declares that ' the judicial power of the United btates shall not be tohstrued to extend to any suit in law or tqutty commenced or prosecuted against one of the United Siate9"by citizens f another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign) state." it is certain that the suit n the dis-. tnct coui-t was not commenced or procccuted! against the state of 'Pennsylvania. She yva$ in ho respect a party to that suit. But it i contended that under a fair construction of this; anieiv inenijif a state claims an interest n the sut j.-ct in dispute, the case is not cog-" nizable m a federal, court. In most cases it will be found that the soundest and safest rule ' by which 10 arrive at the meaning and mien tion of a law, is to abide by the words which the law maker has used. If he has expres sed himself so ambiguously that the plain inttrpreU'ion oTthe words wiild lead to ah surdity, and to ;,a 'contradiction of the obvit oils ip.tention of the lavv, a more liberal cours$ may be pursued. But if Upon airy occasion' the strict rule should be observed, it ought to be in expounding the constitution ; although! I do not mean to say that even in that case this rule should be inflexible. Every reason) i 3 opposed to the. construction contended fpi by the defendants counsel ; ant!, to our ap prehension, there is not one sound reason ..m favour of it. If the title to the thing in dis pute be in the state, and this is mtde to apr ;;earto the couri-f it is inconceivable that th plain'uff should recover so as to disturb llxa right. But if he should jTecover, the ctatq v ou!d not be bound by the judgmcrn not be ing a party to it. This is by . no means new case If one individual obtains a judg ment or decree against another, the interest of a third person no a party, will not be bound or prejudiced by the decision ; but he may neveivheless assert las right in a court of justice against the party in possession of the properly to which he claims title. The state cannot be forced tn'O ccmrt ; but she; may come there, if she pleases, in pursuit ot her rights, and wit! nn xlgubt da so upwn all proper and necessary ocqkstMis. But if on the other hand, the merefclaim of lotvwsj' a state in the subject in dispute between two citfceos can have the riiagic effect of. :i7sus-. psnding all Tne functions of the court of jds-y tide over thai subject, and ol annihilating s decides v.hen pfoiioiMCed, this-effective and;-- nefessapy branch of cur government, and of ll free governments,-- nntp-bc, . rendered rfselcss, at any moment, at the pJeasui'e pf a state. If the snit be prosecuted against a, state, the court perceives at once its want of j'irisiitcticn, and can dismiss the party at the threshold. But if a latent claim in the" stateV . 1 not knovvn pet haps by any of the litigant parties, is -sufficient to oust the juris d'etion, to tnnul th? jud.gnr-nt 'when r n' dercd, and to affect all the parties corrcerned wiih thr consequences, of carrying a .void judgment into execution, the" federal courts -may become. more than uselessthey will hp traps in which unwary suitois my be rTsnar ed to their ruin To illustrate thiy positionf the district attorney mentioned many very strong end very 'supposable 'castas, I-wjH add, . one other. A sues D. for a dcbt, cr for prcs perty either real or personal in his posses ion Conscious that he nvustpay the money, lose.his possessinnjnpngequence cf the-un- -uestiQiipble title of his adversary, B. '. pay ; over t.hti imoney, ov conveys the. property even pending the suit; to a third person, for tj use ol the stat-, and by this operation arretf t ihe fkilhtTirvssef the suit, or avoids th$- - ' yai'tt'nneeesaty tot mi H gire ahy opirtJon eon ce-uTiheY.gHt of iht oM c u.i ct apptis iq reverse ih .' ttcision of justices, Cont. a y iu i :e provisions of ihe ace of assembly ot iw -y i a'iia,-' under which ihe sia.e Court " of admiraly js instueted. That jtM'.e puin't Which . c ciio ied so rourh jalvu f heari-burning Lt-ftrQ several of ihe sigtus and tne eld angrt.M it jtividtd tho wviiiijnsiof tnahy tnon ol uiiq'.ienionab'e t.alenil aad in-;cgiitv,-'.hd cr aialy-ti'n quotioa ol no small-difRcuhy, , Bat the sta 4 oi Pennsylvania hivingtet ncd the prsot ' coiistiiati'n, dd ihe;tby vi matly ."nvcat tia flirts of the Umt?d State-, with p wr .i-cit"s ihn poti tr.Acrsy. Tiiiy have decided iu and b-. ''.; Clearly svVlift their jurisdi5tin, I arti not m libtiiy t-comif'.er it a now, opeii . t di4vu-win. 'The supreme c urt of toe Uniied ' Siatts has mo e i.-ian vnce'd.'.-cidcj,. tfcat the- aid c-irt of apnea's, 'had the jxwe luTevei'se the '.eitlc:- ol iu.-ips,. noiths'iR!iding the lav .uJ any state to ihf c-ut'aiy. . From the estaijlis'-nesis of this p i.ieiple, it ineiis ab! results, lhat Gidem Oimsiead f.d his aTyC:es,w-re entided.tD the whule prodcfdJ.ijt :he ctixe .a hervo, 4,ni miy pursue theaiiniJ whatevtr ijandi th- tray ha"" alien, uit'ei'sindeid ihey liave'faikn :Bt Uk- hand'cu: peisons nt'ubject to an action-in theca'J.t; ol liie United v Sie'--tW ititi ' Ti -efawn' fa wit , jf . :.tuttaft$fJt: Ae J- -' -. - f -f- - -' (Zejlaslfafc.J . 1 1 if
The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 18, 1809, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75