, 1873-12-27
THE RAFFERTY, CASE.


and reaRonalo casHe awaya dorn ox8t when Tho Court
or Justice, upon inspecting The record, nnls manifest
and mhtcria error apparent tcreon II is not
sary taat lilo Court Justco sl,alf arrive ut lnal
conclualon In effect ptcdctcr1ninng the ultimate dis
position Of tho caso. It Is enough that t,e record
brnga tho mind 10 hc oinion and thus maAcz mail
fest thAt material error huH intcrycncd.
Such bong the duty imposed by law, It Is impos-
cbe for ths Court clthcr Of ila Justices to avoid
its discharge without n,rogating jultc1a functions
and demonstrating utter urltnoss for judicial poa-
tInn.
1n an article in your paper OF this morning. yos
characterize tho recent issuance of writ Of In
the case of RnIfoty judicial outrago;" that Is
to Say, sou thus sgtnaze vet III which trco Jus.
tccs Of our Supreme Court coneurrctl. and which 1t
was tue duty Of each ono Of these Judges under Ills
ofciul cath, 10 perform.
How can tho hope bo 1ndfgod Of cscape from the
OWLS npprchendod from tho proyaonce of Communicable
theories II newspapers Of rcsroctaby aid In uring-
Ing tho Judiciary into contempt aud advocate tho de-
termination Of criminal cascs Upon tho basis OF
anmc public opinion, rathcr than upoM and iii tho
mode provided fur by tho law If tho lal,d7
MELv1LLr w. FuLLEn.
CurcAou, Dec. %, 1873.
ANSWER.
We do not call In question the honor or tho
consciontfouaneuB Of etnor OF tho Justices Of tho
Supreme Court WHO granted tho supclsodoas in
RaEorty's caso. That they did their duty as thoy
understood it, wo hayo no doubt; and, III Btyling
tho supcrsedoas rs m outage, we did our duty
as wo understand 1t. This man Rafferty, was
tried and convicted OF murder. There wAs not,
and has novor beon, any conflicting oyidonce 10
far as tho facts of tho homicide aro concerned.
After le wns sentenced, Il Judge OF tho Supreme
Court granted supcrsodoas, and tho whole
Court granted him now trial. lilo was again
tried, convicted, mud sentenced; ind again the
supersedoas was invoked, and again lie WIS
granted now trial. Tho Inst time, tho Judge
who delivered tho opinion, iu declaring TINT cor-
tain evidence excluded ut the second trial should
hayo been admitted, made m elaborate argument
to the loyal effect OF admitting this testimony.
Ho regarded the testimony thus excluded
as changing tho whole character of tho case, and
IA placing the murderer in the light Of cham.
piou Of tho sacred rights aud liberties Of tho
pooplo. Instead Of being I'll outlaw, ho wns d
freeman yindcating In hiH own person tho in
a1ionabo rights OF 4o, 600 Of his countrymon.
Tho Court thus defined the relation of the
prisoner lin caao tho oxcludcd oyidonco had boeu
ADMITTEDLY to tho man ho KILLED;
Tho record contains evidence teullng to show that
tho homicide committed by the prlsonor III rosist-
ing tho deceased, who policeman OF tho City Of
Chicago, whiAt engaged, in connection with another
policeman, whom Ae aiding, In the net OF conf
mitting illegal and wholly unjusaable Invasion Of
plaintiff u liberty, by attempting 10 seze bis person
aud take him on to prison. without any authority in
law so to do.
The case WAS aGain tried, md, though tho
counsel OF the prisoner supplemented luis OWL
ability by tho eloquenco aud authority Of tho
! Supreme Court, tho accused WAS for the third
time convicted, and was again sentenced to 10
hanged. Tho evidence upon which tho Supreme
Court seemed to place so much confidence was
given to tho jury. but 1t did not change tile as-
| pect Of tho caso III tho least for tho reason,
probably, that tho murdered man was not tho
ono making tho arrest.
| Now comes tho third Buporacdeas, and, us it ia
issued Reomingly as mattor Of right, it looks aH
| il the trial Of this nan was to 10 taken from
tho Circuit Court and usurpod by tho supromo
| Court. In MI tho points Of terror" upon which
| tloso writa of Buporsedcaa hayo been Issued,
thoro WIG nothing over suggested indicating that
substantial Justice had not boon douo. In the
accond instance, tho rejection Of tho evidence OF
tho illoga1ity Of tho warrant hold by tho othol
officer for tho arrest Of Rafferty, vat con.
sidcrcd by tho Court al having d.
rect bearing on tho merits of the 1oul.
icido; but that evidence WAS not excluded
at tho late tria', and tho prisoner had tho full
benolt Of it, and. novertholous, was convicted
III every other instance tho errors wore tochn
cal and Apccial, involving matters Of practict
mud pleading. Wo haya as high All ap
probation OF tho Supreme Court as Mr
impair tho confidence Of the public iu til,
integrity Of tho Court. But there is no Court il
the land whose judgmeuta aro not open to criti
oisln. Tint this man Rafferty, committed fol-
aud 1,npro;okcl murder. hua noyor boon quea
toned. II the stato's-Atorney would stipnlat'
that sentonce other than death nloull DO giyol
him, wo he7o no doubt tllu champion Of porsona
liberty would instantly ploau guilty. Tho publi
haye right to sny something about tho practice
Of granting supcrscdcaa upon record wllicl
docs not show that any substantial injustice ha
boon done to the man convicted aud, when tll
conyiction has been repeated thrco times, au'
each timo tue execution Of tho law is arrestc,
by suporsedeas upon somo technical poin
independent OF tho facts tho Court must oxpec
to layo tho action criticised. II tho Buprcm
Court devotion its encrgica to tho mint, anisc
and cumiu, to tho neglect of tho weightior mat
tora of tho law, thon 1t Is possible that tho poe
plo, iu tho exercise OF tloir urdonhtod privilege
will, in duo tins, find Jndges who can taEo
broader vow Of their duty, Without secriloin
noooty to Communists Oh tho ono l,and or mus
dororH Oh tho other.
|
Tho Commissioner Of Htatistlca -. .l.u Stat
Q,3r l.