The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-08

briet recital of the manner in which they have
been practsed upon by the court, and led into
making o FOOLS errand to Richmond. On the
5th of June, formal session of the Circuit
Court of the United States was held at Rich.
mond, at which Mr.. Davis counsel were present,
ready and anxious to proceed to trial. Instead
of indulging them in this reasonable wish, the
presiding Judge adjourned the couit to the I'd
OF October, promising q trial of MIR. Davis at
that time. The following is the language then
used from the bench:-
"The Chief Justice who is expected to preside at
this trial, has named the first tuesday OF October
as the time when 1t will be most convenient to HIM
When this Court adjourns 1t will adjourn, MT
until the next term which is in November but
unul the first Tuesday in October next The
motion of the District Attorney therefore granted
This Court wlll adjourn, not until November, but
until the first Tuesday in October, which IS pre-
feued by the Chief Justice and Attorney General
The case VIII then, If not before disposed of, be
taken up"
Most certainly Judge Underwood did not ven
ture to make this promise, IN the name of the
Chief Justice, without the Chief Justices
authority. Chief Justice Chase, then speaking
from the bench, through the mouth of the Dis
trict Judge, adjourned the court until the I'd
OF October, promising that the trial should then
proceed and that he would be present to con-
duct II. How will he excuse himself for disap-
pointing the expectations Of counsel, and keep
ing prisoner who has been eighteen months
in close custody, still immuted in prison implor-
ing in vain to be confronted with his accusers
Why Is justice thus refused and delayed by ITS
sworn and paid minister The following Ian
guage Is copied from the Constitution OF the
United States:- .r.ta . ..- a..I ... .r..l...
III "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury of the State and dis
trlct wherein the crime shall have been com
mitted.n rr. '. r..u, ,'
Judge Chase who is sworn to support the
Constitution, and paid to administer justice, is
responsible for the violation of this imperative
direction which the Constitution gives TO him,
There can be no trial without q court, aud how
Can there be courts if the judges decline to hold
them 1t rs the duty of the Chief Justice to
know the law, for he is its most authoritative
eSpounder. When he caused the court to be
adjourned from June to October, promising to
be then present and preside, he must have
known whether such an adjournment was regu-
lar, and whether his promise could be legally
kept. 1t is for him to inform the country why
it has been violated. .I..,. ... .r-
In the great treason trial at the beginning of
this century, which was presided over by the
most illustrous of Chief Justice Chase's prede-
cessors, there was no such dlscreditable shrink
ing from the presence OF the prisoner Burr
had been arrested IN what is now the State of
Mississippi in January, 1907; was subjected to
an examination at Washington, the capital of
the Territory and detained In custody to be sent
to the Federal capital. He escaped from Gus.
tody. but was afterwards rearrested and was
Immediately brought TO Richmond, where he
arrived on the evening of the Goth of March,
Now observe the dates. On the 30th he was
brought before ChieI Justice Marshall, examined,
and committed. He was then admitted to bail
TO await Iue dCllOu VI Tue gTauu jury az bDe next
term Of the Circuit Court, on the 22d of May.
On the Gath OF June, the grand jury, of which
the celebrated John Randolph was foreman,
brought in bill ot Indictment for treason, TO
which Burr pleaded not guilty, and the trial was
postponed to the Sd of Augusta delay no
greater than was needed for the preparation of
the case. Thus prompt was Chief Justice Chase's
illustTous predecessor to discharge his consutu-
tiona obligation TO give the person charged
with treason "a speedy and public riOl.n
In a case like this of Mr. DAVIS, delay in the
trial is denial of justice. 1t would seem as If
the Chief Justice, aware of the feeble and waning
health of the prisoner, is hoping that death may
intervene to relieve HIM from dsagreeable
duty. Imprisonment protracied beyond neces
sty is punls lshment; and If it ends the days OF the
prisoner, 1t is the punishment OF death. Punish
mert may properly follow the sentence, il Mr..
Davis is convicted; but punishment previous to
trial is injustice, and ii it results in the death of
the prisoner, it is murder. Nobody will dispute
that to strangle him in prison without trial,
would be murder: and if be Is wllfuly put to
death by the slower process OF confinement pro-
tracted without necessity, we do not see how
the mode of its inhiCtlon can affect its moral
character.