UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Volume 2, Issue 104, 27 September 1879, Page 2

UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.

(Before Thomas M. Dawson, Esq., United States Consul.) The case of the United States v Joseph J. Bartlett, which was commenced on Friday week, was concluded on Tuesday tho 2:ird instant. Thomas M. Dawson, Esqr. conducted the case for the prosecution: and Mr. Richard Hotheriugtou, Mr. T. Lord and Mr. Chas. 11. Rawaon appeared for the defence. A statement was made by the Court as to questioning the right of accused to Counsel, when tho United States Constitution was quoted by the defence in support of such right. Tho complaint upon which the warrant for the arrest of Ucnoral Bartlett was issued, was made by Ma'.ietoa, addressed to Iho American Consul and the Captain uf tho American ship of war, is dated from the Capital ol Samoa, Malm.in, ;kli September, IS7I); signed by JMaliotoa the King, and tin- Taimua ami b'aipule, and sworn to before tho American Consul at Apia on tho l!)tii ot Scptcml or. Tiiis complaint sets forth | tin tho .■■.'. -crib ■!• "received intclii.fciicu •vjaniing a gentleman of your nation who is :ti Aaaa with the Chiefs who were at Mulinuu. He is a foreign leader of troops. This war is about to break out, and blood to be spilt on account of the leading astray of others which is still being carried on by that foreigner as also his inciting words to tho.se people. His name is Joseph J. Bartlett. borthis reason 1 hereby implore your Excellencies to befriend us and make it possible for that foreigner to bo removed from Samoa, lice." Mr. Iletherington moved that a writ of habeas corpus bo issued, directed to the United States Consul in whose custody the accused then was, requiring that the accused be brought into court forthwith iu older that the legality of his imprisonment l»' tested according to law, and argued that the charge laid against the accused did not disclose any offence against the law of the United States, and that the court issuing the order of arrest had no jurisdiction to issue such an order upon the charge laid. The prosecution argued that as the accused was already in the custody of the court it did not think it could issue a writ of habeas corpus in bis favour. Tho Counsel for the defence argued that tho accused was not legally before tho court; that he was illegally imprisoned, and that he was entitled to his writ of habeas corpus, tho right of every American citizen when thus deprived of his liberty. Tho Court held that it had absolute jurisdiction in this case, and refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus on tho grounds set forth by Counsel for tho defence, who then took exception and gave notice of appeal on the decision of the court in refusing the writ. The defence then required copies of the sworn complaint or information on which the charge had been laid, and when some affidavits were produced, argued there was no specific complaint made on oath of the nature of a complaint or indictment. The defence required to see a distinct information or complaint oil oath. The prosecution said tho case would have to bo adjourned until the following morning (the lot.li illst.) iu order to get Malietoa's complaint sworn to, and this was accordingly done.

On Saturday a sworn complaint was produced by the prosecution and taken as read, when Counsel for defence demurred to it before pleading, and asked for a little time to prepare the demurrer, The prm, iitioii thought the defence were trying U all lie-.- legal quibbles to put olf the bearing of too case; bis honor did not understand the necessity of going tut > s i many legal technicalities botoro a Consular Court, lb' was ready to grant any tine,' to answer t" the complaint, but required a plea of guilt,)- or not guilty. The Counsel for tho defence submitted that the United States law allows a demurrer before pleading; it is the practice of the law courts, and clearly laid down in lb.' Statutes that if the accused is required to plead ho Ims the right to a deiiiuriei- to the complaint The right was then allowed by the Court, which was adjourned until Monday. On opening the Court on Monday his honor read a written statement to the effect that after mature consideration ho had decided to refuse Mr. Hetherington to appear any further in this case. Ho was a subject of (ireat Britain, and had not made any application to practice in tho United States Court. Mr.Lord was an American gentleman who has only been some two months in .Samoa; he should debar that gentleman also, not only lor his rellectious upon tho ability of the Court, but it was evident to his mind that the ('uunsul for the defence had arrayed themselves against the Court, and

obstructed the hearing of the cause. It is in tho jurisdiction of a Consul, bis honor further rumarkad, to hear Counsel, It i> usual for the CooavJ, when he anticipates legal ditliculties, to call for two aaanciatea, Amarkan citizens. 11 0 was unable to obtain thata airrmrfattti. audit was unjust to the people of the United States to have all the legal talent in the place arrayed against it. Mr. Lord pro(eatad against these proceedings as being contrary to the Constitution of the I'nited State-, and was removed, under this protest, from tho court by Marshal \ ouug. This proceeding being a suquiso an adjournment until the following morning was asked fur and granted. On Tuesday,'after some diaouasion as to whether his honor would permit Mr. Rawaon to continue with the ease, his honor allowed him to proceed as Counsel for tho defence but would only allow the argument upon the demurrer to be read from tho brief. Mr. Itawson then read the argument on demurrer to tho complaint, the main points being that under section 4()!)0, "Revised Statutes of the United States," a Minister has only power to issue a prohibitory writ in such a easo: that the Consul has not tho judicial powers possessed by a Minister, and that in the absence of a .Minister the judicial functions of a Minister devolve upon tho Secretary of State, and him only, (Sec. 4128, Rev. Stat. U.S.): that upon the complaint tho accused has no Charge against the laws of the United Suites to answer to. In all indictments or complaints it is necessary to allege or state with reasonable certainty tho time place and object against whom "the alleged ofibnee was committed. This complaint does not set forth any specific charge: ami on these and other grounds the defence moved tho Court for tho dismissal of the case, ilis honor, after consultation with his ossoeiato judge, Mr. Williamson, dismissed the complaint.