The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1844-05-10
The Phillips Case.---I.Ci,er from, Gov. Ford.
SPnINsFIELp, ARM %. 1914.

SfnINGFIELp, ARM % 1914.
GENTLEMEN Your letter in relation to lanes
VI. Philips and the proceedings of public meet
ing in your neighborhood have been received and
duly considered.
ltappears tina, Phillips was charged with having
committed murder in the county Of La Sale on
the 2S'h day Of January, ls43 that he was, on
trial, acquitted Of murder bu, convicted Of man.
daughter and sentenced by the jury to the peni-
Tertiary for three years. II appears also that the
Judgment was arrested, and that Phillips was dis
charged by the court.
! On the 9Th day Of February, 1913, all the pre-
vions laws !ur the punishment of manslaugh,er
were repealed, whou, any saving clause as to
crimes previously committed. The same act pro-
vilcs Tor eight years confinement, in the peniten.
tiary, in Of mansaug hter.-S See acts of 1912
-43; page l55; sec 3.
1t appears tina, Phillip, committed his offence
under the old law, aud before the new law was
passed. Under these circumstances he could not
be punishol andcr tho old law, for tina, law had
been repealed; and al tho time of the trial was of
no more force than if it had never been enacted.
Nor could he be punished under the new law
because by the constitution Of The state no punish
mcnt can be inflicted, except such as is provided
by law at the tire when the offence is committed.
The Legislature canno, pass a law, after the COM
mission Of a crime, to punish the offender, in
manner different from the mode existing at the
time. Such law would DO an er post facio law.
Nor could couh give any law such construc-
ton. as would authorize the infection of such
punishment. The court, therefore, clearly did
RICH, in refusing to pass sentence under the new
law.
Butyou may probably think that Philips ought
TO have been punished under the old law. you
do, you are in grea, error There is no principle
Of Law better settled than this that where law,
providing for the punishment Of crimes, has been
absolutely repealed, without any saving clause, as
in this case, the punishment provided Ivy such re.
pealcd law canno, afterwards be inflicted
Phillips could no, longer be detained in Jail,
because he had been acquitted Of the murder and
found guilty of an offence for which the law pro-
vidcd no punishment. A new trial could not
have been ordered. without tho conscn of the cri-
minal. When there has been one full and COM
plec Trial, a man cannot be tried the second time
for the same offence. II was more than the court
dare do, to retain Phillips in prison, as he never
could be tired again iui that crime.
This error in the law Of 42-43, was pcrcci. |
we'd and much regretted not long after the adjourn
ment of tho legislature. The Judges on other
circuits have been forced to &C, on it, in the same
manner that the judge did in yours. The error is |
in the law--not in the courts. It is clear case
in which the judges have been bound to act ms
they have done. And, instead Of being subject
matter of charge against them there is no brighter
evidence of the integrity and Grmncss of court,
than that the judge shall have the courage and
honesty to administer the law as it is, however
unpopular 1t may be, TO do so; and however much
It may subject him to misco instruction and ccnsure.
Thus, as you have requested, have given you
my opinion on this matter, not knowing but that
| myself may come ia for share Of the popular
dispcasure in your county.
am, gentlemen, with hish consideration,
Your obedient servant,
THOMAS FORD.
To Messrs J. II. Henderson, Amos Foster, John
Hubbard, N. Youngman, and A. ID. Carter.
Committee, &c. |