Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
A report of the whole trial of Gen. Michael Bright, and others, before Washington & Peters in the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the District of Pennsylvania in the Third Circuit, on an indictment for obstructing, resisting, and opposing the execution of the writ of arrest, issued out of the District Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others against the surviving executrices of David Rittenhouse, deceased / by Thomas Lloyd ; the arguments of counsel and charge of the judge, revised by each respectively.
Author
Bright, Michael, Gen.
Contributor
Lloyd, Thomas, 1756-1827. Olmsted, Gideon, 1749-1845. United States. Circuit Court (3rd Circuit).
Date Added
13 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1809
Publisher
Philadelphia : Printed for P. Byrne
Source
Pennsylvaniana
Topic
Bright, Michael, Gen. > Trials, litigation, etc. Trials (Resisting an officer) > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia.
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
P
were tlivided’ in opinionion ‘this‘Vq’ucslVtioti.”." the7 niinthpvh,
iumc Ql",>[hU'j'0l.'lrn'J1 ‘of congress,‘ pp-‘ 26. '27sx‘I 0lJ5;6I'"t: that.
I . " -m t‘, ' A l < L‘ A t -
‘marque, kc. and the act off ‘COllnl8rSlg"nll1g‘IV!h(;)- congressional commissionstwas lp
’ uivalcnt to the excrciseo that owcr.., n t e. instructions ‘to. privateers, “it:
p likeivise observable, tin: COIIQIIECSS ,autho‘i'i-i'e,thc't:apt‘nrs .to‘proceed',to libel A
and ciiuilctari ‘their prizes “ in a;iy‘C0tlrh(!rCCte(l’ for. .ihe'tri:il..of maritirne af, '
‘ fairs, in any of these colonies." ‘)2 .70IlIjIl;:COIlg.: 106,.1l6..1l8.'.I But surely, it fl
’ ‘ is possible for a state, to delegate the ‘potver of issuing‘lettcrsof marque, &c, ,
and yet retain ajurisdicticn over prizes brought into lier’poris,;ior,' reversing the
ropositioti. to give up that iuristliction, and yet tetaiii the power of yissuingf ‘
letters of mzirqnc, A court of‘appeal is not ti. iiecessary'incidetit of sovereigiity; ‘
If there best courgjudging by the law of nations, no‘cnmpl:iint can be m.'ide’b
foreign owers; the resttlepctids on municipal law.;4 ‘I’. Rep. 382. ‘3 .111’ 401.
“Call. jzuitl. It has been questioned, indeed, whether tiny’ court can decideriii the
1eg;l'rty of aprize, which has been captured’-untlerr‘ the aiithority Qfn’(lllrcrbng
power, from that by which the court. was constituted ;. ‘biitiri tliecasehf :i'con.,
frdtrntetl sovereignty, each member of the.cnnfetler:ition rn:i‘y,i’unrlt-ubtedly-,. ,
I‘ ‘give power to the others voilecidel on prizt3S‘t3l.'en1uiI(lCl' its‘ sepzlrqtc authority. ’
Thus, llt<C'lViS?';‘l!pi1[)[)E3rS that France cstublislied courts in the West-Indies, jg;
determine the legality of prizes taken by’AA7neric'anlvt'-S$el3: ulthtiiigh no article I '
ofthetreary provided for Sll.:l1 an establishment.‘ '5 f]uu‘rn. ’Covig.’440. In other ’
5-‘ treaties, however. the case is‘expressly,providcd.f<gr, and tlic5judicaliu.rc's of the "
‘place, into which the prize. itziken by either of the contraciping parties, sliallv
have been conducted, may decide on the -tlegality of the captures," according to
V thcluws and ret;ulat’ions of the stores, to ,wliich the captnrsgbelongt 3 Pruriiati
K i - A meat] Ar:.2i.:. 4.’ Duttb ‘Treaty.’Aft. 5. ;Sftt-ekiirli Vmity "x1rt i 185.9. 41 :.Biit . ’
' = thelaiiguuge ofthe :ll’!H.‘leS’(>f confederation ‘deittoiisirates,Ihgipnlitical llidt'[)en$3
dance. and separate tiutlinrities of llICjStIICS; ffieach stiite, retainsiitsrsrive. ’ ‘ ‘
reigtity freedom and independence, and every poivci-',jii'risdi‘ction and riglit,‘ which ' .
is not by this confcder llillw express-I; delt-g:tted'to.the United States, in coiigress ‘
assembled " zlrt. 3 xlf, i ‘dew.-tl,‘ihe st:t.cs had not, individually,‘ .,all the powers
of sovereignty, how could they tr;insfer,such powers, or any oftlierit, to COltg]'e3s 9 V I
vDocs not congress itself, by the appointment ofa comniittce to draft the articles
of co.tfeJer;ition; and by its earnest'solicit:itioii,'thnt Il1:CVSCV6l'IAl states Wollldlllai‘
tify the illSiYUmCnl fevince Li sense of its own political impotence, and of the pleiii.
tutle of the state aurmrityl But, after all, it must be consIdercd;tltai Donne, the
defendant in error, waived the appeal In congress, by carrying hi's'case into the Sui ‘
preme Court of Newsllampsliirc, instead of applying imirediatcly rm relief -to '.
coiigress, when the iiiferior state C uri reliised to grant to the congressional court ‘
of appeals: and the Supreme Courrof ihI:tSS3CllUSfllS:7ll3S‘ dCi"‘Cl>’n‘l>'ll‘.e'd in -in ac-
3.081‘ of.:I‘ro;r:r bCCWCCl)5:l)8‘f:'Zll-'Ile[-p;lIli8S, that the court of'appea.lst, had no. jug-is.
tctionlni iscausct it ms, mum. .. . 4:, . ,:',t.t>f-,w,.j- ., V ', . . r, 2
2.. The second suliordiniite question is --Are the resolutions of congress, res- ‘
peering pnze causes, mlllldillllifyi and absolute ; or qn[)'>yeCg‘fnynevr,datQry! 1,, vspg-
rit andt in terms they are tio more than,tecornmendaio;-yg-‘such ‘as the. sum,
might at pleasure, either C(1l’l'yilZll0 elTect, or reject. "The state. which erected
‘he C0“? Of Admmlllyi possessed the power, likc,wise,,to regulate, theappellate
juritdictioii from its decrees.‘ Thus, the rict of Peiiiisylvzitiiamodelled the "ap- r
' pellzite power in ‘ a special maniicr. as to the tim’e“,of appe;inn'g-;'am1 denied the ,
appesl altogether, ;as to facts found by the ,verdict of‘ ti, juryut The Supreme ‘
Court of New-llumpshircivas in existence long before tliefresolutions or cons
. gtess were passed; and there no pretencclfor congress to claim :1 coritrouling.
or appellate‘, power, upon tlieiudgriients, or decrees, therepronounced ;pthougli'
congress might “recommend a particiilar mode .34 prgceeding as convenient and
;idvanta5eoiis.‘j As far ,:‘.S respected l'nrcigi‘.ers,-Newgliampshirc concurred in
the OPIIHOD Of Congrtssi hut rejected it in cases,tlikc 'thc.present,fbetweeu ci-
izexts.-.' i. M;l':.. ,- ,- .‘“
I.‘ ‘
. .(
x