|
Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
U.S. Supreme Court
U. S. v. COOLIDGE, 14 U.S. 415 (1816)
14 U.S. 415 (Wheat.)
The UNITED STATES
v.
COOLIDGE, et. al.
March 21, 1816
THIS was an indictment in the circuit court for the district of
Massachusetts, against the defendants, for forcibly rescuing a prize,
which had been captured and taken possession of by two American
privateers. The captured vessel was on her way, under the direction of
a prize master and crew, to the port of Salem for adjudication. The
indictment laid the offence as committed upon the high seas. The
question made was, whether the circuit court has jurisdiction over
common law offences against the United States? on which the judges of
that court were divided in opinion.
The Attorney-General stated that he had given to this case an
anxious attention; as much so, he hoped, as his public duty, under
whatever view of it, rendered necessary. That he had also examined the
opinion of the court, delivered at February term, 1813, in the case of
the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin. That considering the point as
decided in that case, whether with, or without, argument, on the part
of those who had preceded him as the renew
[14 U.S. 415, 416]
sentative of the government in this court, he desired
respectfully to state, without saying more, that it was not his
intention to argue it now.
STORY, J. I do not take the question to be settled by that case.
JOHNSON, J. I consider it to be settled by the authority of that
case.
WASHINGTON, J. Whenever counsel can be found ready to argue it, I
shall devest myself of all prejudice arising from that case.
LIVINGSTON, J. I am disposed to hear an argument on the point. This
case was brought up for that purpose, but until the question is
re-argued, the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin must be
taken as law.
March 21st.
JOHNSON, J. delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the question now before the court a difference of opinion has
existed, and still exists, among the members of the court. We should,
therefore, have been willing to have heard the question discussed upon
solemn argument. But the attorney-general has declined to argue the
cause; and no counsel appears for the defendant. Under these
circumstances the court would not choose to review their former
decision in the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, or
draw it into doubt. They
[14 U.S. 415, 417] will, therefore, certify
an opinion to the circuit court in conformity with that decision.
Certificate for the defendant.a
a Vide, 1 Gallison, 488, for the learned and elaborate opinion of
Mr. J. STORY, in the circuit court, in this case, tending to show that
all offences within the admiralty jurisdiction are cognizable by the
circuit court, and in the absence of positive law, are punishable by
fine and imprisonment.
|