{"character_count": 5288, "word_count": 929, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9592999815940857], "ccnet_perplexity": [2018.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
This Is national affair le; the Nation then settle it
amicaby they cln but ii not let them carry 70 the grand
asizc of Nations, calling upon God Sustain the right
5u, ncvcr let it said that civil humane and Christian Ma
had wreske vengeance upon helpless individual
forced WELD the commands for obedience wAich he
suffered


In conclusion the whole prosecution resolve. itself into
these principles:


l. 1t seeks to make the Municipal Courts of New York
crci,e jurisdiction over the rsr> o; Nations.


> It seeks to deprive the National Government of power
conferred upon by the Constitution, and drag down 70
the level OF the Municipal Courts.


g. 1t seeks to thrust the Municipal Cours of this State
bc,wSsu the duty of subjects Of foreign Nations and their
Government


l. 1t violates the independence of Nations which allows
each be governed by laws Of its framing This
which gives the subject socny greater than attaches
any question of peace; these but Ompo-
rar in their character however, with the everlasting
blight evil principle sanctioned by the high Courts of
tue land


After Mr.. Bradley had concluledh argument, Mr WooD.
Dc, Attorney Nagura Co.. and one Of the Counsel for
the People in this case arose. and after remarks Of
general character proceeded explain the circumstances
oi which the present trial grew Citizens OF our
men he said had participated the invasion of anada,


and had paid the penalty they had been seized tried and
cNccued-and government had intcrPosed claim for
;hcir surrender. The justice he maintained should
mcted out to those Canadian subjects who had like
unwarrantnble manner invaded soil and that the British
have ground for dcandn. their surrender


He coutended moreover, that before the prisoner could
justify himself ne prove that the person under whose
authority he acted had right issue such orders and that
he bound obey them There principle. said Mr.
Wood by which this conld be justified except of
and it is conceded all hands that the time Of its
pcrrcration, there was no war between the govern
mcns.


He denied also the ground that British subject invade
or soil The .vowal Of the act by hi, does
rcl,ase him responsibility and punishment. The
moreover he maintained hid no authority inquire the
case in it, sen shape The prisoner had been indicted


MURDER and had pleaded guilty that is had demand
ed that thc.caso be tried by jury he had ts formed
is-Ie which could be tried only by Jury.


The only propernquir for hi. Court hethsr he had
been legally committed and several portions the Revised
Statutes were read show that they had authority in
qurc into no other point tan this whether the papers
were regular upon their face. Ia this conceded
that all the papers arc exactly and properly made there
as been no error the process and the whole investigation
must therefore be At an end The scvcra grounds maintain
ed bv the prisoners Counsel that OF ms having acted under
orders s. agc proper conc before jury ON his trial;
the Court cosd neither consider this point inquire vhc
tber the order. had been cxceeed ,hy 60 behind
The Indictment enquire into any matter w!tcyer ticy
may there no case which accused individual may not
come up to thi, court and ask his release.


ler Mr. Wood had concluded his argument. which, Tor
want Of space we have been compelled omit. Hon. VIZ
LIS Haul Attorney General for the State and Counsel for
the People in this case commenced hs plea by saying that
the matter before the Coart strictly OF lav: ,
Court was Court of Law and he intended argue the
case strictly az question of law The demurrer he con-d
cred Withdrawn and therasc rested allegations be pro-
we'd.


The prisoner stands here indicted for mnrer lie mas
pleaded not guilty Notwithstanding this motion has been
made that without trial Of this issue without any disposition
of the Indictment the prisoner be discharged There
reeace of nfor.nay or that he legally detained in
custody Now by the common law as we'll by statute
bob in ,- country and in England Indictment nis be
ds.n,ed either by a motion to quash for prtn0 aco ia
,r7n,v. b trial bv the record when issues of law
presented to the Court By questions Of fact presented 10 the
or o- bv roll. proscqpi Hea.ked the counscto show
,ceicnt for any other way - dispose OF sctmeut-


lo motion before the Court i novelty motion without
,r..d.a;an experiment; upon the Court the first Of the


kind that had ever beer adc and he trusted the decision
would be such kat it would speedily be repeated.


pv the English Law wit Of hq5sas corpus would not br
Granted to oae indicted for narier by the Court Of Queens
Pncb ie referred to the great Statute of which England
and We her descendants alike proud the 3ls Charles
H. CHapt IT. lie also referred statutes specially except
:r- from the benefit OF ha5eas corpus cases OF criminal
character. (56 Geo III. Clap. 1909 II. therefore, the
prisoner were being ed by tn legal tribunals Of his own
country he would not be allowed the privilege Of appearing
in c 3urt and being heard on this question


The indictment Of Grand Jiry in It's nature and IN the
reason T the thing of the same character As the decision ct
cosr. This Cearr cannot alter the verdict or the finding
If Grand JURY # heu the prisoner be discharged the