Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-02-20

Tho case Of Seth johnson, indicted for the
embeEzlement Of $50, 900 while as,lstaut cash
Ter In the reasury Of the United States, was
resumed In the Criminal Court, before Judge
Cartier, yesterday, there being large crowd
10 attendance. johnson accompanied his
counsel, Mr.. Riddle, into the courtroom,
and remained at bls aide during the hearing
No signs OF anxiety were Visible on his coun-
tenance.
The Chief Justice having announced bis
readiness 70 proceed With the case
Mr. Harrington read tho act OF 1857, under
which the plea In bar was filed, and then
read the section Of the act Of 1859 which re-
poaled that portion OF the former act on
which the plea la bar rested. He commended
that the decision OF the case had not been
final, and that the court might now review
and reverse lis decision made under mis-
apprehension.
court was equivalent to the verdict Of Jury,
aud the defendant once discharged could not
again be called 10 answer; but even admitting
that he could be called up again, he urged
that under the prOyislous OF the act Of COu-
gross, which required witnesses summoned
before either House or before a committee 10
testify concerning any matter about which
they were iutcrrog Sted, a witness would be
entirely without protection, an Idea al va
dance with common law and with common
right. Whenever Con gross chose 10 Investigate
anything, (and there Is not anything IN tho
broad range Of tho
PRoyIpENcEs or con,
they would not undertake 10 investigate } they
might compel q man to give information
against himsclfi and As the basis OF that In
| formation, summon witnesses 10 convict him.
| In all tho
NUMBERING LEGISLATION 10.
/ OF Congress there was nothing else that was
OF piece with this. lie never saw before
such an Illustration OF
INNATE DkrRAViTr AND iSNiSclbLs rVRPi
rupE
as was contained In these lew lines Of law
They were all unconstitutional and void; HC
then urged that the words did not repeal thu
whole OF the second section, on which th'
| plea was based. The act said repealed, al
tered and amended. Now what was amended
| could not DO repealed. He continued Wbet
| grew 70 the dignity OF having pair o
shoes, which was quito late In lio,
CARRIED TuEM TO sHoEMAKER
70 DC amended" The shoemaker did no
destroy the shoe He could only amend II
Keeping IL In existence. Aud although
TuohPsoS'S BOOTS
were said TO be 80 amended that there wa
not piece Of the original boots left, still
they continued in law TO be
| THE SAME OLD Doors
In tho amendment OF law.
The monks OF the middle ages ehaced TIN
grand aud noble classics from the parchment
aud wrote
| THEIR MosKIsH sUPERsIIrloS.
But Congress did not do THIS In the case o.
| thls statdte. They lett both statutes TO D.
read together, II the court could do 50; ant
be appealed 10 the court to remember tina
this was a case 10 which such construction
should be made, II possible.
Nm. uIHRINaToNs VIEW.
| Mr. HaTrIn,gton aid that the constellation
Ality Of the act Of Congrcss rcouIrInu vii
nesses 10 testify araInst t6emsolyes dId no
come M, In thIs caso. That NAV come mn h
| the rass ~ tho nsapt ySitnesss. II iyo,SFc.
ever drags them out FINN, thc IndIrIaTy Dom
mIttee and send them 10 the DIstrIct atiorney
but il Is NOT here nov, M. II. ouote,
DwnrrIs on Statutes "a AUTHORITY for declaT
inc thnt when an act declared mai sectio,
"be amended so a. 10 read az follows, " i'm
parts n rupoal OF the former statute. How
much more where 10 these words were added
a. In thls case. words formally declaring IN.
former section 10 be ''repeaIed 2" He con
CURED that tho act compelling wItnesses /,
testify, and vet not shielding them from Grim
/ inAI nrosectltIon an Account al surh testI
mony, was contrary 10 mama chartd and nm
constitutional.
| OPINION or THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
| Chlsf Justice CATtter Haldl This cAse- liz,
/ ali others. mas ia diflicnltIes. bnt me conr
i must proceed 10 DO ia duty "a IA best possI
i ble. The arst suggestion Il that lie case ba,
i been determined Nv the court and tbat thn
determination ought 10 be Anal. The facts
as stated by counsel, are subsIautIally time
/ az faT "a iho rn,,rt r.cnlIects ,horn a.
/ satIsaed Zoo as thc rnnnsrI has con,cndsJ
] that the issne ,yaH presented 10 the .ss.,,s, i.
tue absence OF the Jury and was argued by
counsel, and that the decisiou was announced
| and leave 70 plead over given and declined
There is no longer question that the statut,
/ To which the attention Of the court was callet
as sustaining q plea In bar was repeated, ant
that a lAborlous argument aud grave couclu
alon took place over the dead let ter Of III
law. No eensuTc attaches To any one. Il i
not 10 be presumed that the District attOrne,
shall wade through the many pages OF un
codlned statutes which are placed In his hand
BY Congress, the subject.matters OF which b.
would not be advised by the titles Of chap
/ tiers.
This court will beg 10 be excused from
knowing all the statutes passed by Congress
until they shall be brought TO tue attention
of the court. But In this case, tue court DO
lleylng the statute 10 be still law, expresse,
the opinion that the statute sustained tn
plea In bar, and when asked II counss
Tor the defence should prepare q journa
entry significant of the opinion OF the courl
replied T'yes," aud Immediately adjourned
Soon after the adjournment tho District al
torney was advised that the statute had bee
repealed, and the court notified the cler
that he need not journal that entry, althoug
such an entry had been, after the adjourn
ment handed To the clerk by the counsel Il
the defence.
Now, the question arises whsthcr this cAI
pas ed by this from the control OF the eouT
, Tor It win be conceded that the court lntelde
TO eXpound living aud not treat on the dea
law. Now, have no hesitation to say thI
II the court had entered q Judgment upon ii
entire body OF an indictment on plea 10 Law
that decision would be as irreyokable rs
release effected by the Intervention Of jur
But Is that the case berc7 There was
i, plea and q demurrer, and an opinion DR.
: nounced In favor OF tho demurrer, and beio
T, that opinion Of the court could be journallL,
! the court arrested the entry because II
. disclosure Is made that we have all been
0 work over repealed statute. ULder the
! circumstances Il became the lmperiOus dul
of the court 10 correct It's declslon, TO tire
, the action of that demurrer as INCOMPLETE
! and TO reconsider aud reverse ia action. DR.
yided there arc no other reasons.
: But Is commended that thla statute III
4 | not been repealed; that Il was Intended To n
I peal II Is conceded. IL Is said that this Ia
9 act Is not Ineligible, and that II iutelligibl
8 II Ia unconstitutional. The act Is not wei
Ineligible, but the court eau understand /
: meaning.