Ross v. McIntyre
Decision Date | 25 May 1891 |
Citation | 140 U.S. 453,11 S.Ct. 897,35 L.Ed. 581 |
Parties | ROSS v. MCINTYRE, Superintendent of the Penitentiary of the State of New York at Albany |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petitioner below, the appellant here, is imprisoned in the penitentiary at Albany, in the state of New York. He was convicted on the 20th of May, 1880, in the American consular tribunal in Japan, of the crime of murder committed on board of an American ship in the harbor of Yokohama in that empire, and sentenced to death. On the 6th of August following, his sentence was commuted by the president to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary at Albany, and to that place he was taken, and there he has ever since been confined. Nearly 10 years afterwards, on the 19th of March, 1890, he applied to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York for a writ of habeas corpus for his discharge, alleging that his conviction, sentence, and imprisonment were unlawful, and stating the causes thereof and the attendant circumstances. The writ was issued, directed to the superintendent of the penitentiary, who made return that he held the petitioner under the warrant of the president, of which a copy was annexed, and is as follows:
To this warrant was annexed a copy of the petitioner's acceptance of the conditional pardon of the president, certified to be correct by the United States consul general at Japan. It is as follows:
The case was then heard by the circuit court; counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the assistant United States attorney for the government. On the hearing, a copy of the record of the proceedings before the consular tribunal, and of the communications by the consul general to the state department respecting them, on file in that department, was given in evidence. No objection was made to its admissibility. The facts of the case as thus disclosed, so far as they are deemed material to the decision of the questions presented, are substantially as follows: On the 9th of May, 1880, the appellant, John M. Ross, was one of the crew of the American ship Bullion, then in the waters of Japan, and lying at anchor in the harbor of Yokohama. On that day, on board of the ship, he assaulted Robert Kelly, its second mate, with a knife, inflicting in his neck a mortal wound, of which in a few minutes afterwards he died on the deck of the ship. Ross was at once arrested by direction of the master of the vessel and placed in irons, and on the same day he was taken ashore and confined in jail at Yokohama. On the following day, May 10th, the master filed with the American consul general at that place, Thomas B. Van Buren, a complaint against Ross, charging him with the murder of the mate. It contained sufficient averments of the offense, was verified by the oath of the master, and to it the consul general appended his certificate that he had reasonable grounds for believing its contents were true. The complaint described the accused as one 'supposed to be a citizen of the United States.' On the 18th of that month an amended complaint was filed by the master of the ship with the consul general, in which the accused was described as 'an American seaman, duly and lawfully enrolled and shipped and doing service as such seaman on board the American ship Bullion.' The complaint was also amended in some other particulars. It is as follows: To this amended complaint was annexed a certificate of the consul general that he had reasonable grounds for believing its contents to be true, similar to the one to the original complaint. Previously to its being filed, the accused appeared with counsel before the consul general, and, the complaint being read to him, he presented an affidavit stating that he was a subject of Great Britain, a native of Prince Edward's Island, a dependency of the British empire, and had never renounced the rights or liabilities of a British subject, or been expatriated from his native allegiance or been naturalized in any other country. Upon this affidavit he contended that the court was without jurisdiction over him, by reason of his being a subject of Great Britain, none ever did reach the latter. Under* those circumstances, to instruct that the to the complaint.' The court held that, as the accused was a seaman on an American vessel, he was subject to its jurisdiction, and overruled the objection. The counsel of the accused then moved that the charge against him be dismissed, on the ground that he could not be held for the offense except upon the presentment or indictment of a grand jury; but this motiion was also overruled. Four associates were drawn, as required by statute and the consular regulations, to sit with the consul general on the trial of the accused, and, being sworn to answer questions as to their eligibility, the accused stated that he had no questions to ask them on that subject. They were then sworn in to try the cause 'in accordance with court regulations.' A motion for a jury on the trial was also made, and denied. The amended complaint was then substituted in place of the original, to which no objection was interposed, and to it the accused pleaded, 'Not guilty,' and asked for the names of the witnesses for the prosecution, which were furnished to him. The witnesses were then sworn and examined, and they established beyond all possible doubt the offense of murder charged against the accused, which was committed under circumstances of great atrocity. The court found him guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to suffer death in such manner and at such time and place as the United States minister should direct. The conviction and sentence were concurred in by the four associates, and were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Samuel Downes v. George Bidwell
...held to apply only to the circuit and district courts. The territorial courts were free to act in obedience to their own laws. In Ross's Case, 140 U. S. 453, sub nom. Ross v. McIntyre, 35 L. ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, petitioner had been convicted by the American consular tribunal in Ja......
-
Lauritzen v. Larsen
...of authority, was that the nationality of the vessel for jurisdictional purposes was attributed to all her crew. In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 472, 11 S.Ct. 897, 902, 35 L.Ed. 581.20 Surely during service under a foreign flag some duty of allegiance is due. But, also, each nation has a legitima......
-
Factor v. Laubenheimer
...278 U.S. 123, 127, 49 S.Ct. 47, 73 L.Ed. 214; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 271, 10 S.Ct. 295, 33 L.Ed. 642; In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 475, 11 S.Ct. 897, 35 L.Ed. 581; Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 437, 22 S.Ct. 195, 46 L.Ed. 264; Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S.Ct. 515, 68 ......
-
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez
...for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad." In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891) (emphasis added). This was said to be so because "[b]y the Constitution, a government is ordained and established '......
-
Separation of Powers, Individual Rights, and the Constitution Abroad
...the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the 73. In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). Although the seaman was a British subject, the Court treated him as having the same rights as a similarly situated American citizen. ......
-
The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.
...retired and Justice Whittaker joined the Court, but he did not participate in the decision on rehearing. See Reid, 354 U.S. at 41. (102.) 140 U.S. 453 (1891); see Reid, 354 U.S. at 10-12 (plurality); Reid, 354 U.S. at 56 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result); Reid, 354 U.S. at 67 (Harlan,......
-
Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court?s Misreading of the Insular Cases
...the new possessions of the United States[, t]he Department of Justice says it does not without act of Congress.”). 99. Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) (“By the constitution a government is ordained and established ‘for the United States of America,’ and not for countries outside ......
-
ORTIZ V. UNITED STATES: THE SAVIOR OR DEATH SENTENCE OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM?
...Up Article III: Legislative Court Doctrine in the Post CFTC v. Schor Era, 68 B.U. L. Rev. 85, 89-91 (1988)). [245] See, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891); Revised Statutes of the United States [section][section] 4083-4096 (2d ed. [246] Id. (overruled on holding, but analysis of what constitut......