Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New YorkWarburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
History
Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Warburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
Piracy -- United States; Privateering -- United States; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
In reference to that, there are a number of additional authorities that
I will furnish to your honors. In the case of the _United States_ vs.
_Charles A. Greiner_, tried before Judge Cadwalader, in the
Philadelphia District, the defendant had been arrested under a charge
of treason committed in Georgia. It seems to have been understood, by
the learned counsel on the other side, that the question of
jurisdiction may be influenced by the fact of whether there was any
possibility of these prisoners being tried in Virginia or not; and it
is in reference to that point that I cite this case. Judge Cadwalader
says:
"The questions in this case are more important than difficult. On
the 2d of January last an artillery company of the State of
Georgia, mustered in military array, took Fort Pulaski, in that
State, from the possession of the United States, without
encountering any forcible resistance. They garrisoned the post for
some time, and left it in the possession of the government of the
State. The accused, a native of Philadelphia, where he has many
connections, resides in Georgia. He was a member of this artillery
company when it occupied the fort, and, for aught that appears, may
still be one of its members. He was not its commander. Whether he
had any rank in it, or was only a private soldier, does not appear,
and is, I think, unimportant. He is charged with treason in levying
war against the United States. The overt act alleged is, that he
participated, as one of this military company, in the capture of
the fort, and in its detention until it was handed over to the
permanent occupation of the authorities of the State.
"The primary question is whether, if his guilt has been
sufficiently proved, I can commit him for trial, detain him in
custody, or hold him to bail to answer the charge. The objection to
my doing so is, that the offence was committed in the State of
Georgia, where a Court of the United States cannot, at present, be
held, and where, as the District Attorney admits, a _speedy_ trial
cannot be had. The truth of this admission is of public notoriety.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account