Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1856-01-02
Extr.srainary JuaIesal Decisssa.
Lo~ss tie .Hanlerer Of Hrtardis fs,sed Lsos

Na4s
.1oses tie Nasaersr Of .Krtandis fs,sed Leos
wpoa compaAnita ~. NJ, z
The Supreme Court of Iora 1t ifs late sessiol
has reversed the decision of the District CouS
of Des Moines County sentencing John Z. Jone
10 imprisonment in the Penitentiars for life 70
the murder of Horatio NcCardle. tj59 s8s
1 This murder took place in Lee county, Iowa
in the year 1870, and was one of the most ag
Egravatcd and cold blooded which reyer disgraces
4 the annals of crime. sAs re 1sE Fs6 9agg q
4 Jones had resided several years In Lee count.
1 prior to that murder, and was, regarded as Z
most qnarrelsome, turbulent and dangerous mem
her of society. He always went armed with
dangerous weapons and was in the daily habit oi
threatening to pcrpctrate some injury to the
persons or property Of his enemies. He had
4 BEEN arrested snd indicted once or oftener fol-
crimes Of lesser note before this murder was
i Iperpetrated, but succeeded by some lucky turn,
which still seems to follow him, in avoiding the
ads Of justice 6 ..i7s - -
| Without just cause Of offence against Mo
Cardle at all he went and shot McCardle dead on
| his own premises whilst working by the side Of
his son, a youth then of II years of age.
Jones fled from the murder and though hotly
| back of Cincinnati, where he engaged IN keeping
ats'dead falr' or as it is more commonly called a
Liquor Grocery In the spring of 1855, the
Judge of Lee county hearing of his wherea-
| bouts, despatched an officer for him.. Jones had
just come out Of 80 days imprisonment for
some misdemeanor when the officer got there,
and such was the desperate character he had won
in Ohio, that an artifce had to be resorted to to
secure his arrest: for fear Of his weapons 60
Jones lawyers demurred to the Indictment for
want of jurisdiction at the April term Of the
Lee District Court, but were overruled AT the
October term Of the Lee Court Jones swore a
change of venue from Lee to Des Moines county.
At the November term of the Des Moines Court
Jones was tried by a Jury, and after a most
fair and impartial hearing by both Court and
Jury was convicted of murder in the first de-
gree. ~, 4siaj sT gafe54H is
The Judges sentence, heretofore published,
gave the reason Of the Judge for sentencing
Jones to Imprisonment for life in the Peniten-
tiary, rather than hanging. On this trial Jones'
counsel again raised the question Of jurisdiction
and being overruled filed their bill of exceptions
and took the case to the Supreme Court on that
question s8 Is Ta Il" t5s!
The question of jurisdiction raised was that
the crime having been perpctrated under the
Territory of Iowa, could not be punished under
and by the State of Iowa. That this position 10
fallacious and unsound, was shown clearly
enough to the minds of ordinary men by the de-
cision of the Judge of the District Court. The
law to punish murder in force when this crime
was perpetrated is found in the Laws of the lie.
gisative session Of the Territory Of Iowa of
1889. By an act of the Legislative Assembly
Of the Territory Of Iowa, approved 10th Feb.
1S43 the previous act was repealed with pro-
viso, that person who had committed a crime
punishable under the previous act should be
prosecuted and punished under that act, the
same as though the latter act had not been
passed. Therefore, previous to the adoption Of
the Constitution of the State of Iowa, Jones was
clearly punishable for the murder of McCardle.
Was it the object of the Constitution and of
the People of Iowa in adopting the Constitution
derers and other criminals in society? To sup
pose that the members of the Convention who
drafted the Constitution intended any such folly
and evil, is a forced and vehement supposition,
indeed. But the members of the Convention,
nor the People at large ever designed such a
thing. The Constitution speaks too plainly on
this point to cause any serious doubt on the SUBJ
ject. Art. II, sec. 2, of the Constitution reads
that "al the laws now in force in this Territory,
which are not repugnant to this Constitution,
shall remain in force until they expire by their
own limitations, or be altered or repealed by
the General Assembly of this State" Thus by
the express words of the Constitution itself, was
the law Of the Territory relative to the definition
and punishment of murder continued in force,
unless repugnant to the Constitution, (Which it
was not,) and if continued in force it was in
force to punish its past as we'll its future vio-
lations But lest that section af the Constitu-
ton should not present any serious inconve
nience or injury to the public or individuals, by
the change from Territorial to a State Govern
ment, section /, of the same article of the Con-
stituton provides s'that all writs actions, prose-
cutions contracts, claims and rights, shall con-
tinue as if no change had taken place" SC.
and Sec 8, of the same article reads that v"all
fines, penalties and forfeitures, accruing to the
Treasury of Iowa, shall accrue to the use Of the
State. ".s.g it7 e,..s !Ayps i.
Surely one might reasonably enough suppose
that tie parts of the Constitution referred to, 60
far enough to hold criminals accountable for
their n,isdeeds perpetratcd under the Territorial
Government, and so thought the District Court.
But if they do not, what farce and shame was it
to turn murderers loose to spill more blood, and
yet hold all Civil contracts however insignificant
nvoable. #s#a ,s-asss.sss4 it4 ee7l. 12z 4
By the code of the State of Iowa adopted in
1851 all previous laws whether enacted under
the Territorial or State Jurisdiction was repealed
with sundry saving clauses, among which is the
following to-wit 'No offence committed,
and no penalty or forfeiture incurred under any
ctrepealed and before the repeal takes effect,
shall be affected by the repeal" Code, page g.,
Sec. 81. %G afs. eIL5 9 ~ aiPT
Most persons would have supposed this part of
the code sufficiently strong to cover the case of
Jones. But it appears to have failed to do so.
utthere is one principle oflaw which it seems
to me should have held Jones liable had not the
Constitution not said one word on the subject
further than to have continued the Territorial
laws in force which were not repugnant to the
constitution. 1t is this, that in civilized life,
and government of laws, change of govern.
ment whether by Revolution or conquest, OF
otherwise, does not of itself change the rules
of property, the obligation of contracts, nor re-
| lease the punishments due to offenses for crime
s'evil of ITSELF or as lawyers term it ''malam i,
se," of which murder is the most atrocious, such
crimes are offences against the whole society ant
whatever form the government of that society
adopts, it is there right and duty to punish sucf
offences The law books are SO full of this doc
| trine and it is SO well understood and acouiescet