The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-24
The Case OF Clark and Sullivan.
TO THE PUBL

proposition will be favorably entertained by the
House. w.
The Case OF Clark and Sullivan.
THE PUBLIC.
DESTROYS at all times of avoiding public discus
sion of matters purely of legal nature, except be-
fore that forum which the constitution and the laws
have provided for the hearing and settlement Of
such questions, I am compelled by a sense of duty
to that community whose servant an, to correct
the many misappreh which have been indus
trousy circulated, (growing out of the recent cases
Of Clark and Sullivan,) in regard to the law allow
ing writs of error to the people in criminal
BY one paper, of high and acknowledged respecta,
bility, it has been designated 81 very cruel and i'm
proper lava law "giving the right to the prose-
cutting attorney to appeal from the verdict of
jury which had acquitted man after trial for
manslaughter, murder, or any other crime" It's
spoken Of rs having been Struggled through the
Legislature" as being utterly anomalous having
no precedent in any code Of Jurisprudence that has
obtained among civilized nations . 1t is also in the
same journal represented as having been ''passed
not only after the commission OF the crime, but
after the judgment Of the supreme Court granted
the prisoners new trials In anotherpaper Of equal
character, it is called "most extraordinary act,
and in the published opinion Of one of the Judges
of the Supreme Court, tits cassed as in the nature
of an er post facto law.
portion Of these charges, and the history of its
origin, and the causes which led thereto, may not
be uninteresting The law is as follows:-
Wits Of error to review any judgment rendered in
criminal offence except where such defendant shall
have been acquitted by jury may be brought behalf
county where such Judgment shall be rendered upon the
eame being allowed by Justice OF the Supreme Court;
and the Court Of Appeals shall have full to review
by writ Of in behalf Of the people any such jug
ment rendered In the Supreme Court in favor OF any
defendant charged with criminL offence
A draft of this law was prepared some time in
December, 1851, before Judge Roosevelt had taken
his seat on the bench, without the slightest refer
ence to the cases of Clark and Sullivan, which in
fact, were not argued until the February term,
1852, and was forwarded to Albany in January,
shortly after the meeting Of the Legislature. IL
fret presented in the Senate pursuant to previous
notice, by Mr.. Tabsr, of Albany, ,<than whom a
on the 2lst February was read the first and second
times by unanimous consent, and referred to tho
Committee on the Judiciary On the 25th Feb
rnary, Judge Vanderbilt, from the Committee on
it was committed to the Committee Of the Whole
There it remained until the 9th of March, when, by
unanimous consent, 1t was ordered to third read
ing. On the Sth of March, 1t was reported by Mr..
Clark as correctly eDgrossed and on the 18th of
March, it was read third time, and unanimously
passed the Senate. On the 10th Of March, by
unanimous consent, it was taken up in the House,
unanimously amended and ordered to third read.
ing, read third time and returned to the Senate.
On the ed Of March, il was again taken up in the
Senate, the amendment unanimously concurred in,
and the bill returned to the Assembly, and having
received the Governors signature became Ia SO
was struggled through the Legislature" OF the
causes which led to its passage, I proceed to
speak
Prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals, in
the case Of the People Vs. Corning, e CONS p.
ID the right TO bring writs Of error in behalf Of
the people in criminal cases had always been ex-
ercsed in this state since the Revised Statutes of
$780, and the Court of Appeals, in the case of the
People vs.. Adams, Il CONS. p 1881 had them
selves aIctioled the practice by affirming judg-
ment of the Supreme Court, reversing, at the in.
stance OF the people judgment in favor of the
had repeatedly been exercised in England, and
believe was never there questioned In Corn
ipg's case, however, the question was distinctly
raised, both in the Supreme Court and in the
Court of Appess-the former sustaining the right;
and the latter, after twenty years practice to the
contrary, determining against the right. Such be-
ing the decision Of the court Of last resort, IL
apparent that unless legislative aid was furnished
the public in matters Of the most vital Importance
were ut the mercy OF courts Of limited and nfe-
rior jurisdiction; and however erroneous in point
Of law their decisions might be, if against the
illustrated in the case of the People VS.. Phelps,
indicted in the Ontario County Sessions for forgery,
in passing counterfeit notes Of some of the as
soci ated banks, the indictmeo; being demurred to
the ground that the act aEthorisiDg these banks
was northumberland, on argument, the de-
murrer was sustained--thus determining it was no
crime in that county to pass counterfeit notes Of
the banks Incorporated under the general law.
Carefully framed 80 as to preclude the slightest
Constitutional objection, not even comforting upon
the people the right to "bill Of exceptions" and
specially excepting from its provisions cases Of
passed on The s2 q March, isSs G In the month S Of
February preceding, the cases of Clark and Sul-
van were argued, but not decided until May term,
nearly two months after the passage of the law.
Will any lawyer of fair repute inform me what
vested right the prisoner had acquired before the
judgnen. of ths Supreme Court was pronounced
W to that me ment the judgment Of the Oyer and
Termjner was 10 full force and effect, the execu-
ton Of the sentence alone being stayed As to its
being On &c pest faeto law; can oply s:y tina. IN
til tie definition Of those words As furnished by
Bla .kstonc. and expoundsd by the Supreme Court
Of the United States, shall be altered by some
moro competent authority, shall not attempt to
defend the law in question from thf, imputation.
Nor was the law retroactive, but the reverse and
although the right to pns retroactive laws Is fully
settled az within the power Of the State Legisla
lures to pass, If they please, am one Of those
who, admitting the power. do1bt the propriety Of
its exercise
Such is q plain, unvsrnished history Of the Law
IN question, the .propsiety, constitutonality, and
Ivan fully discussed before and decided by the
Court OF Appeals, on motion to dismiss the writs
Of error.
OF the necessity Of some paramount tribunal,
possessing the power to finally determine what the
law L. amid the conflicting decisions Of courts of
concurrent jurisdiction, / leave your readers and
the public to determine have myself been trained
70 bow with Difference to the decisions Of our
courts, until reversed by . higher tribunal, and
to those who set up the standard Of their
owA opinion against the Judgment Of the sonsti.
tutsd tribunals Of the land the Apostle remarks Of
Lord Bacon
De ds ct c. judieis ,eei,r susstio, ssd De scion.
Nc sire error st juvs aut Jacfi
No question u to be made Of the honor and duty OF
Judge but Of his knowledge whether he Il mistaken AZ
to law or fact Of the ease, It may
N. BowDITcH BLUNT.
The editors Of the Harrisburg ptnpoeraf Messrs