The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-04-30

Withholding pardons, good omens that the re-
turning tidal wave is approaching, with its judicial
terrors to every vioator OF the laws and its protec
tion and encouragement TO all who love and value
our institutions. ROBERT j. MERCER, Foreman.
Judge Brewster's Response.
When the reading Of the presentment was
cluded Judge Brewster addressed the Grand Jury as
foows:-
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury-You deserve the
thanks Of the community and OF the Court for the
fidelity with which yon have discharged your duties.
Your promptness in hearing and returning the bills
submitted to you has enabled us to give every case
an opportunity of trial, and has saved the city a
large amount Of money.
The whole OF your presentment deserves the care
ful attention Of the community.
respectfully commend TO the consideration OF our
citizens that portion of your remarks which refers TO
our County Prison.
II is time that the crying evil of want OF accom-
modaton for prisoners, and the greater want OF q
House OF Correction for Nagrants, should be promptly
remedied.
You have referred to the commitments issued by
magistrates triing cases. They may be d.
vided into two classes
l. Those which describe the charge against the
defendant as a misdemednor. | am advised that
this form is adopted in many cases of Vagrancy in
order to prevent the inspectors from dischargng the
defendants trust that this may be misapprehen-
sion, for many of our aldermen are doubtless very
upright officials, well entitled to the respect OF the
community, and hope that whatever may have
occurred in this behalf is purely the result of acc
dent 1t is however, most unfortunate that the law
should he violated even in the case Of the most de-
praved members of society.
feel bound therefore to say that a commitment
for a misdemeanor, without further description Of
the Ohense. Is a mere nullity
The Constitution of the United States secures to
every defendant the right 'tO be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation, and the Const
tuition of the State expressly recognizes the same
privilege.
"a warrant or mittimus against a man to answer
to such things as shall be objected against him, as
at ought to contain the certainty OF the cause
and therefore, If be for felony it ought not to be
generally for felony, but it must contain the special
nature of the felony, briefly, for felony for the
death OF such an one or for burglary in breaking the
may appear to the Judge upon an habeas corpus
whether it be felony or not" 2, II. H., 122.
And all the forms are in accordance with this
principle. See BinnS' Justice SO, 10I, 1885, 263, 2S23
51S 537 This wholesome doctrine of the law was
enforced in the case of Williams VS.. Jones, to the
extent of holding the magistrate who had issued an
indescripvC warrant liable in trespaSs for false i'm
prisonment That case was tried in the District
Court for this city and county, and in
authorities reviewed and the law clearly stated
lLeg Int. April TO-, 1851 1t may be proper to add
that the warrants in that nearer TO the
quirements of the law than those recently exhibited
to me- They charged the defendant with ''abusing
OF the peace" which, although no ofense,
was at all events descriptive of some act,
something recognized by the law as indctabe, or
might by the caprice of alderman refer to the eX
ercise of constitutional right by the defendant
which the magistrate regarded as violation of pro,
priety, as where defendant was committed
for appealing from an a adverse Judgment;
this subject Sufficient for our purposes
that the law is so written. No true lover OF her
principles of the liberty she guarantees would de-
Sire to see it otherwise and feel bound therefore,
to say that in my opinion all such warrants are void,
and all persons concerned in issuing or executing
them are liable as trespassers.
Second. There is another class OF commitments
before me which is, if possible still more objection
able. They require the officer to convey the defend
ant to prison, because he is charged on oath with
having been drunk and disorderly," and according
TO the warrant the defendant is to be Kept by the
ailor until 'the next Court of Quarter Sessions,
till he shall thence be delivered by due course
OF law
To this class may be referred the commitments
reciting that the defendant is charged with drum
Senness and vagrancy and recurring tne lailor Or 10 TO
thence be delivered by due course of law" And still
others in which the defendant is charged with
drunkenness" Alone and the keeper of the prison is
required to detain the defendant for twenty-four
hours. The legality of these commitments will be
made very clear by brief reference to the statutes
which it may have been supposed authorized these
The old act of 1867 dr Dig 999 s2) authorized any
Justice to commit idle and dsOrderly persons 'being
thereof legally convicted, TO the common jail of the
county to be kept at hard labor for any time not eX
The act of March 90 1886 (Br. Dig. 1000, S5 directs
that ''a persons who may be committed be-
city OF Philadelphia as vagrant or dsorderly
person, shall be sentenced to suffer confinement at
suitable employment in the yagrant apartment o
the city and county of Philadelphia for the term OF
4 section of the same law directed that a vagrant
apartment should be built (Br Dig, sos, Sec 3l and
the later statute Of 1854 (Br Dig 526) commanded
the erection OF house OF correction to which all
persons thereafter convicted va2rant or dsor-
derly' should ''be sentenced" The whole
some requirements of these laws have been disre-
garded; and it may perhaps be doubted whether the
act of 1854 is not repeal of the acts OF 1867 and
1886, as TO the place of confinement, and If so,
whether the jail can be longer used for this class OF
Offenders But however this may be, it must be
very clear that no person can be committed under
these statutes on mere charge, although the
charge may have been made on oath In
addition TO being accused, he must be
| 'conUicted." We all understand what this word
imports. No man can b. convicted without trial. A
hearing or opportunity of being heard is absolutely
! essentia-the defendant must be confronted with
his accuser and have the right OF meeting the accu-
sation After all this the responsibility rests upon
the magistrate of entering Judgment and II he con-
vct the defendant then, and then only can the CON-
mitment issue commitment upon mere charge,
without trial. hearing, and conviction Is palpable
violation of our rudest sense OF natural justice To
pass this by because the sufferers frendless out
casts would be blot upon our record which no mere
| profession of beneyolence could ever remove. The
| same remarks apply to the commitments charging
The act OF i794 r Dig, $40, sec 81 authorized the
imposition OF fine upon any person convicted" OF
| Intoxicating himself The act Of 1886 (Br. Dig 667
sec. 39l increased the fine to t5 If the person was
ound intoxicated in any street, but this was to be
'upon view or upon pro0tN and II was TO be 'levied
upon the goods and chattels of the defendant
The act OF 1888 (Br Dig, 66S, Sec 43) reduced the
penalty to s2 The act first cited provides for q
commitment, in default Of payment OF the fine, "not
exceeding "a hours
without specifying the duration OF Imprisonment ol
fixing il at $50 days" or "unti the next COURT is
SO, too all commitments for the same cause upor
mere charge, without hearing, trial, and conviction
| are absolutely void.
| am informed that discharges are sometimes sen
TO the jail after supposed convictions for vagrancy
| This is also improper. After regular conviction th
| magistrate has no control over the case.
| TO such an extent has the law been overlooked il
| these matters that actually find one commitment
which not only reGtes no tTal OF cohytcuoh' nut
| The community are indebted to Mr.. William j