The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-16

gnism more degrading or unjust than that
which seeks to array the East against the
"West.u We have deigned to consider this
paragraph seriously, merely to show its injus-
tice, in fact. The want Of patriotism which
inspires IL is unworthy of American journal
ism We had hoped that all these sectional
phrases and epithets had perished in the war
they did 80 much to foster. We regret to see
any attempt to fan them into new life.
Criminal Appeals in the Federal Courts.
from the N. Y. Times.
We see that Senator Trumbull has intro.
duced q bill into the Senate to provide for the
due execution of judgments of the Federal
Courts in capital criminal cases. According
TO the synopsis Of the bill which has been
given, il provides that whenever judgm ent
OF death shall be given in any United States
Court, and the case ''shall be carried to the
Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error, In
pursuance of law" the execution shall be
postponed until the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case, and it further provides for
the execution OF the decree, IL the Supreme
Court shall sustain the judgment
We have no doubt that some such provision
is needed in the criminal law OF the United
States. 1t does not, as we understand, make
any change in the present law, but only pro-
vides for state of things for which, at present,
no provision is made. But it seems to us that
if the bill is as stated it will fall short Of the
object which it is intended to meet. 1t hap
pens to be the fact, as the criminal law OF the
United States now stands, that no judgment
can be carried to the Supreme Court in
criminal case by appeal or writ of error. The
only way in which a criminal case can be taken
to the Supreme Court for review is by pro-
curing two Judges to sit on the trial of the
case, and then procuring division of opinion
between them as to questions of law involved.
1t was in this way, as will be remembered,
al Al,.tN 81. nf VAao off.o of Alo D-o1
dents amnesty proclamation 1--WE mean the
one before the last) was taken up to the Su-
preme Court in jeff Davis case. Chief Justice
Chase and Judge Underwood, who sat on the
hearing of the motion to quash the indictment,
either actually differed in opinion on the ques-
tion or perhaps only agreed to disagree, be-
cause they agreed that the questions involved
were of such impOrtapcest that they ought to be
passed upon by the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Trumbull's bill, then, should be
amended SO as to give right to appeal from
! such judgments, and then the rest of his bill
| will be appropriate. Indeed, We do not hest
tate to say, as we have said often before, that
some provision ought to be made for appeals
! in all criminal cases. We do not mean that
| every criminal case should be appealed but
! that some law should be passed, applicable
not only to casual cases, but to all classes of
ollenses, by which appeals might be taken to
| the Supreme Court without the present cum
bersome machinery of two judges and dlvi-
sion of opinion. Let an appeal be allowed
wherever the Judge who tried the case shall
certify that the questions are of sufficient i'm
portspce to justify the appeal That is SUP
stantially all that we get now, and to obtain
this, under the present system, counsel nave
| to arrange with the Judges that two of them
shall sit in any particular case. Hence often
times arise delays and difficulties which
might be obviated under simpler system.
This bill of Mr.. Trumbul's furnishes good
| opportunity to make q change for the better.