The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-22
Supreme Court.
rHEnn Ar rEnaV npIHTn,


DEo. M,-This morning Judge Roosevelt delivered
1he following opinion the OF the oonvicts Clarke
and Sullivan, setting forth his fer hssitatias
10 sign tho warrants for their execution -
sign this warrant with deco reluctance. The pre-
psnts the extraordinary, aud think until unprc-
cedented spectacle OF juoicsl tribunal In Of
life and death called upon pronounce judgment upon
human being MsAinst liza own of both Law an
human night he's tbin ca WAS before IN 70 review ON
behalf Of the prio decided. after full srgum
and careful deliberate that he enttsd =
trial For that cecos v, gave our reasons at length
and unanimously in otst result As the
ias stood when The argued before deci
scr being favor of the bad been then pro
nouneec would have been confesedly beyond the
appeal and would have created Quas vseted right
the triel which oroerto On the 22d of al arch
ho@ever the LtghIsrrs of not generally uud
stood inare.d waie the uruer advise
ment, to pass act contrary, as conceivs to tho
whole spirit o. penn prudence so sing of
error and that even rtrospecdve against prisoner
Such an ACT IL not literally and tssnnio sy post
facc Law within the Euius of Tbs prohi son
IN the Con.tuoa of tht United States acproache, It in
spirit effect nearly TO be scarcely
Ole from that universally set dsmnea OF sgtsati
Under that Act ooxe.er h.bor last or min vrit
OF issued ngsinst ths psoRer sni
Of this Court revTsed The appellate tribunal decsipg
that killing wi intent ku formed ant
OF swkitg TIE blow IL the same IL perpstrsJsd
Frcnedtated design 70 effect death Of the parsoa
killed The latter is the language Of Legislature In
tbs II. the ant ot ef marder former the Ian
gusge Of tbs JUDICIARY Both hold 10 have the same
meaning; and on tnat ground chs Court Apps ais lie
eide thai the prisoner vison of murder aecorl
ING to iaw and Whatever be iseiyidus opinions
rust be ga into effect by the Court. We have &C.
coroirgy, AZ required by law issued habss corpus to
brig the prisoner fore this Court and have inq ured
Into the circumstances Is the eta ate drecs
And the question arises whether against strong
soIEc!ions we shan OF sfsn q sarrant for his execu
Zen The statute provides thai sh ali dc if legal
besoDs exist sgainst the execution Of the prsoser
Nhe then is TO oage Of and DE responsible for these
easons We have al ss1y said and de ,ded that
cur opinion (our opiHioa remsins unchauged) the
tnt~nce Of dea fer prcradn ed ought not
ss that then seemed and stu, sss,ns sosd s.sa
reasons Ihe Court o Appeals say they are not and yet
the statute eosious oontenp ates thas We must judge
of them at the Gue OF sjgnng the warrant and thus
oessarly for the second upon their validity
Such the dilemma In which the peculiar special and
conceived hAsty action OF the Last Legislature has
involved While giving o appeal contrary to all
former ussga In capital cases in favor Of tho strong
against weak instead Of carrying cut the principle
and thro wing the shse responsibility the Appellate
Court it hiss left ths provision in the Revised
Statutes already referred 7. i.posns upon the court
hearing dectdirg upcn the bssore ordering
tbs execution and that yet ordering .. all events whs
win be said perhaps. that in judging Of the
against the cuton OF the seneuce bound to
acoept ipcitly the expedition Of the Court Of Appeals
This may be As general rule IL Is Difficulties
however, in the before have suggested themselves
to my mind in the application Of the rule tue most
painful uncertainty In civil the Law provides that
the Court of Appeals may not only examine all alleged
errors in the Supreme Court, but may also
affirm the Judgment Of hat Court give such ether
JUDGMENT Is The Law may and tnst the record
eh then be rentted to the supreme COURT whore such
further proceedings shall b. had may be necessary to
departing from these general provisions overlooking
their exirtence simply declares that The court where
Judgment has been reno cred in the Supreme Court in
fayqSo any dsfepdsDt charged with criminal ofsnes
the Court CT Appeals hall bGve full power review by
writ Of error in behalf If the ope any such judgment
Il has been aud the surgeson In not without
rlsusibihty that The emission OF the Leg seture
Intentional and sltoge,hsr proper, that tasy meant
to confer the power o. review sud that being sufficient
to settle the meanng Of the Law for the future
and 70 uniio Gtty " decision. Does the
term review IL is sfsed. carry with 1T, by
sary implication, the power and to render
q judgment ard 70 seod rasdase 70 the court be-
lew 10 execute such udgnent? IL 80, Why all
chose supefuous PROVISIONS inserted In the general law
contained In mo revised statute Legislature
II soon 10 assemble They declare, sud car do
authoavely what hs be the construction Of the act
Of last sesior-s1d vhas is stl important they
with equs effect also deelsrs whether, in the judg
slent OF the people of this State, the killing of hanaa
berg unswfBlly but sjth intent TO kill formed only
On the instant OF kpg tos blow crime II the
character 20 be embraced unaer murder aud deserving
Nthe pupis bm.ur a. prrsec ifatsd murder Ample
SINE therefore should be allowed to take the OF
hat body thu subject. The wbsle eight weeks the
maximum period prescribed by the revised should
BE- given the prope in King the day Of execution
In addition to which, IN peculiar In its or
sumstances ccIcsiye daty Of the mem oers Of this
court individually. II not ofoaliy 20 bring the mstter
10 the notice Of the executive the officer intrustsd
the contribution with not cny the power Of committing
punishment but Of intending to the Legislature
such matters as he may judge sxpesient