The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-01-06

Imp0Itant Oec1D10n ON the Action Oh p0A1co
justices.
gUr1UO C0URr-GUn1L FKRx
DscMm rnn, lssa-JaaYA Norris -. M Psps-
Hes WAesIes w. The Same-EonoHDs, r. J.-fhsss oasss
are brought before NJ On ssEoraE 70 rsvsw The action
Of Justice 1t ambsrs On wris of habsas corpus From
the returns to those w II appeared that the prscasrs
had bssn committed to the psnitsnaU In the sty Of
New York on mummy "a ~. o ono sHas
FORM
E. fy ~ !a S.a Esss s:..s
serass that Joseph Nerrs this day before him
ss ;as e:
h. ~ y 2: s I
Jussic: d adjudss Whsreupon he the Jusaos sfors
M ssns ssss ~ .ss ":
"; ssrs,.S haze h:rsanss assd ny hand and SEAL this
This form Of the record was dsfsndsd under N set
and in strict conformity with that statute That act
probably extraordinary any to which party and
invasion Of the rights Of personal liberty than & to b
found in statute book; but yet, unless hold It
to bs in violation Of the consituen We obliged to
permit 1t to be enforced however strongly may feel
called upon to condemn its provisions. Summary CON-
yictons are coming very much into vogue with In
have borrowed them they hsve extended to about 1907
goo in year, under their game, excise, and police
laws But q they operate principally upon the poorer
AID lower classes, they permitted to endure and
principal instrument in keeping those CLASSES
IN subsection. The snlgh nsd judges Of that country
fence Of the liberty Of the aubject easily discovered how
prolific those convictions might b or oppression Of the
lever classes and Their fore they have for long tint:
adhered to system Of russ in regard to them which
were calculated to- and did Afford protsc.is. against
this manifest danger. That system required that
should specify every act and fact which the convis
ton was based, 80 that By removing It to higher
court the party accused might have the opportunity
xh In nunfr Law nuUh In hal IN
one Of testing the question before tribunal other
than the oppressor himself, whether he lawfully
vietDg mag israte, considerable labor skill and know
ledge In the business in which he vas en-
s SIT the
lass. Bat ss Ii. British Parliament yielding to the
same impulse which has In uenoed our Legsature In.
creaed the range and number Of these convcons they
deemed advisable to tighten the burden the masii
raj form Of record, act Of 1858 has DONE But
aware that By such form they deprive the party
s:d q they aSo
the accused, thus deprived his remedy by oertiora
out Of the Kings Bench might s have By an appeal
magistrates from the labor and the necessity for knowledge
formerly dem andd they did not achieve that work ct the
expense Of the liberty Of tn. subject or make the mags
action where personal freedom was involved
In this State there general form Of record autho
which the accused could have his conviction reviewed
but in this court, to which the record could be re-
moved and the action Of the committing magistrate
the bench / have had occasion to discharge hun.
dreds oipsrsops from the psnitentiary because Of
applications becoming that took pains in . carefully
considered opinion, to oolste all the hw the sub.
Police The g.
The People w. Eliza Phillips, reported in New York Ie
gal Observer 100 THE views then put forth have lately
al not tho
dsregarded the rule sometimes finding too much
operation Of habsas corpus sooordnsi,, in January
ls4o deemed II my duty to call the attention Of the
81
only three Valid and that OF 748 Migrants In the
+, s and
sordngy At the request q II. Board Of
and they we're for While adhered to- They 1sr
however, sn trou lesome for they still demsnded labor
knowledge and until in question ntsrpossd
rendering them all unnecessary Now under that statute
there mods In which the decision Of magistrate
Of alleged vasrancy be reviewed Ths oay remedy
provided that its second section oonfegs the
uniting and Of the Governors Of the As-
house the power to discharge the convict before the
expiration OF his term but nowhere provides for review
we'll be Questioned whether this second section
Of the statute is not void because of this transfer OF
Of the Governors OF the Almshouse, put that ques-
ton Is not now before The only question here Is
whether the hrst section OF ths Aute deprving It
may, the aecused party of all review Of Judgment by
which any one Of may, without trial By jury, be
Imprisoned for SIX months ID In violation OF the coastu.
ton.
Tho only provision Of that Instrument a. all bearing on
the subeot IL section article l., which enacts that
the trial by jury in all In which It has here
toforc used shall remain inviosse forevern But thst
does not Affect the question before MS that
atss to the conviction and this statute only to the review
Of IT. because jury trial has been In
summary convictions The STATUTE therefore stands
affected BY the constitution bat It II the less be
deprecated for II already acts upon than 900 Of
people every year. and the number constantly in
ersssing, and may b made TO upon every one Of
male or female, young old, rich poor, high
low The remedy, however In this court In the
Leyislsture. Our duty ID discharged when We hold
We must that the law not Unconstitutional and affirm
the Judgment below.