The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-05

III Is strange, III Is passing strange, how
soon great principles which underie. even
the foundation of free institutions. forming
the very bulwark of the liberty of the per-
son and the freedom of the citizen, are for
gotten or are, temporarily, suffered to
pass from memory. Notwithstanding their
origin is found in the teachings of the
Divine Master, that it were better that
ninety-nine guilty persons should escape
than that one innocent person should suf-
fer, the world was governed for centuries
upon the contrary principle. 1t were, per-
haps, nearer the exact truth to say that the
question of guilt or innocence did not.
Gown even to recent period,
enter into the punishment or exc
cution Of alleged criminals or oh.
noXious persons. Even in the great charter
OF liberties Wrested from John-Which is
the foundation of the so-callcd constitu-
tions of Great Britain-thc principle was
not fully recognized. The utmost conccs-
sion was that mo freeman should be
arrested, or imprisoned, or dsseised of his
land, or outlawed, or destroyed IN any man.
ner, ''but by the lawful judgment of his
peers, or by the law of the land" At
what particular period of English history,
that broader, deeper, and more important
principle, looking to the safety of human
life, declaring that no man should be
placed twice in jeapordy of his life or
limb for the same alleged offense. we can
not, at this moment, say, and it matters
not. Tyrants and dcspots found easy
methods to avoid either principle, and the
lie and liberty of the subject was measu-
ahly, at the will of the kngly ruler, law
or no law. In America, however, it has
always been different and during nearly
a century, the rules to which we have re-
fcrcd hayc been practically in force in most
European countries, always excepting
times of revolution or popular tumult and
commotion when their application in the
true letter and spirit, are the most ncces-
sary.
In order that there might be no room for
question, the first Congress. under the con-
stltutlon, (which assembled in 1899, pro-
posed an amendment to the constitution
fixing the matter beyond all peradventure,
which was speedily ratified by the requisite
number Of states and thus became IA part
OF our organic law-indeed, it became a
part thereof nearly as soon as the original
instrument was assented to by all of the
all tlipIgnn nt. .,1Anina
sition was embraced in the Fifth amend
mont, and in these words Nor shall
"any person be subject for the same Of
" Tense to be twice put in jeopardy of life
"or limb, 1t is evident from cotempora-
neous history that the real purport and
meaning of this provision was not fully I'M
derslood at the time of its passage and
from these facts, although the principle was
by no means new, we are led to infer that
it was differently interpreted as the gov
eminent of particular countries approach.
ed, or reccdcd from, despotism liberty reg
ulated by law, or actual lawlessness. We
learn from reported case, heard as early
as 1879, that the principle was acknowl-
edged as one fundamental to the liberty of
the subject in Great Britain, but in that
case-that Of Whitehead and Fenwick-
novel course was taken to eyade it. The
guilt OF the accused seemed to admit of no
moral doubt, but there was a fatal defect
in the evidence, rendering it impossible to
convict and making it the sworn duty of
the jury to acquit. OF course verdict of
acquittal would have discharged the prison.
ers, giving them perfect and perpetual
Immunity from punishment. The crowns
attorney, therefore, against the protest of
the accused, but with the consent of the
judges, discharged the jury before the con-
clusion of the trial, Sin order to procure
more full proof at a subsequent trial"
The other extreme was taken by the most
eminent attorneys of Pennsylvania in the
case of John Hauer and others. indicted
for murder soon after the adoption of the
constitutional amendment, and which ia