Herald Of The Times

THE PIRATES.—Monday last was the day fixed upon to pass sentence on the prisoners recently tried and found guilty of the crime of piracy before the U. S. Circuit Court at Boston. Immediately after the Judges had taken their seats, the prisoners' counsel stated that a bill of exceptions had been filed with the clerk of the Court, on which it was intended to ground an application for a new trial of the convicts; and requested further time of the court to investigate and argue the motion. The District Attorney wished the gentlemen to go on with their argument at once, according to uniform practice. The court agreed as to the practice of arguing motions in arrest of judgment, instanter, but were disposed to grant every rational indulgence to prisoners capitally convicted, and expressed a willingness to grant a reasonable time.

After the learned judges had inspected the papers filed by the counsel, the Court then stated that there was a preliminary question to be decided, before a motion in favor of these prisoners, could be argued before the Court. This was the question-whether any capital case, which had been once tried by a Jury, could, under any circumstances, be tried over again. This general question would arise under the clause in the 5th article of amendment of the U. S. Constitution, which provides,-"Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The learned Judge intimated that this Constitutional provision was peculiar to the Constitution of the U. States, in common with the Constitutions of but two or three of the States. That there was no provision of the kind in the Constitution of Massachusetts, nor in those of most of the other States. They were, therefore, fully aware that the practice had obtained in the courts of this State, in some instances, to allow a new trial in capital cases. Such, however, had not been the practice in the United States Courts, acting under the U. S. Constitution. The counsel would, therefore, be prepared first to argue this, as a preliminary question. Should the Court, after a hearing, decide that, under any possible circumstances, it was competent to allow a new trial in the U. S. Courts, to persons convicted capitally, then it would be for the counsel to show that the principle ought to be applied to this particular case. The counsel could then produce their testimony, and show either that the prisoners had not been convicted according to law, or that there was new testimony, or as the case might be. The Court, therefore, intimated that it must be expressly understood by the counsel, that this preliminary question was to be first argued, and the authorities on which the counsel relied, must be filed with the clerk of the court, in season for them to be examined by the court before the argument, so that the court might. in the mean time, investigate the case as to this important question, and be prepared to decide it advisedly.

The counsel for the prisoners agreed to this, and requested till next Monday, to prepare to meet the question, which the court assented to.

We learn (says the Centinel) that in case a new trial should be granted, it will be proposed to introduce the five of the crew of the Panda, who were acquitted, as witnesses, to prove the innocence of their late companions. We understand that their affidavits have already been taken connected with this object.