The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1869-04-01

III tney Kill Nun, pTO'lucu he cduuo1 pe
otherwise taken, it is justifable, though
if they are killed in endeavoring to make
such an arrest, it is murder. Upon pro-
bable suspicion also private person may ar
rest the felon or other person so suspect
ed. But upon suspicion of felony only
he cannot break open house or kill the
suspected person" To the same effect
see l Chitty, c. L. P. II, l Russell on
Crimes, 593.
In New York, Chief Justice Savage
stated the law thus: eff felony has in
fact been committed by the person ar
rested, the arrest may be justified by any
person without warrant, whether there is
time to obtain one or not. If an innocent
person is arrested upon suspicion by q
private individual, such individual is ex-
cused if felony was in fact committed,
and there was reasonable ground to sus-
pect the person arrested. But if no
felony was committed by any one, and a
private individual arrest without warrant,
such arrest is illegal, though an officer
would be justified if he acted upon in
formation from another which he had
reason tqsrely on" (Holley VS.. Wise 3
Wendell, 353.)
In Pennsylvania the point was made in
Wakely vs.. Hart C Binney, 3lS) decid
ed in 1914, that the common law had
been altered by the constitution, which,
n the seventh section Of the ninth arti-
Gle, declares "that the people shall be Sc.
cure in their persons, houses, papers, ana
possessions from unreasonable arrest and
that no warrant to search any place, or
seize any person or thing, shall issue with
out describing them as nearly as may be,
nor without probable cause supported by
oath or affirmation" 1t was argued that
no arrest is lawful without warrant is.
sued on probable cause supported by oath.
But it was held that this provision was to
prevent the abuse Of the warrant of ar
rest By forbidding it from being issued
without good cause or in vague and un-
certain form, and Tilghman, c. j., pro-
ceeds to say: "It is no where said that
there shall be no arrest without warrant.
To have said so would have endangered
the safety of society The felon who is
seen to commit murder or robbery must
be arrested on the spot or suffered to es-
cape. So, although not seen, yet if
known to have committed felony and
pursued without warrant, he may be ar
rested by any person. And even when
there is only probable cause Of suspicion,
private person may, without warrant, at
his peril, make an arrest. | say at his
peril, for nothing short of proving the
felony will justify the arrest. These are
principles of the common law essential
to the welfare of society, and not intend
ed to be altered or impaired by the Con
titution." This is the sett led law, and
was recognized by Gibson, c. j., in Rus
sell VS.. Shuster, 8 w. and s., 800. See
also Commonwealth vs.. Deacon, s S. and
f., 40.
1t is argued that larceny is not such
felony as justities arrest. The force OF
this distinction is not discoverable.-
Though sometimes light offence, it is
often grave and important in its conse-
quences. y loss which would be grievous
to poor man, and enlist all his energy
in the pursuit, might scarcely be felt By
one who is rich TO tell the former that
his right to seize the felon and bring him
to justice, and thus recover his property,
depends on the amount in value, would
only mock his earnestness and condemn
the law. 1t is also said that arrest by a
private person is contrary to the genius
of our institutions, and is the relic of
barbarous age Bat the reverse is the
case in a republic, where the people them
selves represent its sovereignty and its
security. The felon is an enemy to that
sovereignty and security, forfcits his IL
berity, and cannot complain that the hand
of his fellow man arrests his fight and re
turns him to justice. What title has he
to immunity from the law which he has
and to be permitted to escape
its penalty because the officer of justice
is not at hand to seize him. He has
broken the bond of society he has dealt
4 blow at its welfare and security, and he
has placed himself in open hostility to all
It's faithful members, whose duty it be.
comes to bring him to justice. We speak
IF the known felon. 1t is misapplica-
ion which applies the guards of the con.
'titution and the sacred principles of a
ust and we'll regulated liberty to his case.
The harmless citizen stands upon diff
Terent footing, and a private person ar
'esting him does it at his peril, and if
iilled, the crime is only mauslaughter-
[he distinction is founded in nature, and
is reason is clear. An innocent man is
unconscious of guilt, and may stand in
lis own defence. When assailed under
pretence which is false, his natural pas
ion rises, and he turns upon his assaliant
nth Indignation and anger. To be ar
ested without cause is to the innocent
reat provocation. IF, in the frenzy of
assion, he loses his self-control and kills
is assailant, the law so far regards his in
rmi;y that it acquits him of malicious
omicide. But this is not the condition i.
the felon. Conscious Of his crime, he
as no just provocatiou he knows his
lola atinn IF law opI fbaf Int, i 4