National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-23
POLICE COURT POWERS
THE BUFLE-CHINDLER LIBEL sun
BEFORE TIE SUPREME COURT.

BEFORE TIE SUPREME COURT.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES
INTERESTING ARRAY OF FACTS AND LAW
ON THE SUBJECT-A MOST IMPORTANT
CASINO DECISION AS YET RENDERED.
In the Supreme Court Of the District Of Colum-
biR yesterday before all the judges, the tmpor-
Sant case OF the United States, rel! Hon. z.
Chandler, VS.. Augustus q. Buell. came up.
STATEMENT FACTS.
In this care, on April 2, 1874 and aIlt was made
before the clerk Of the Police Court thaI defend
ant had composed, written and published false.
ScapdAlOus and malicious libel against senator
Chsndler. On the same day warrant was issned
m the arrest of defendant; on April defendant
vas arrested and on April defendant gave his
ban bond with 'grsJ 70 e SaSTs
April Is, ASIA, certforart was granted, and mo-
ton 10 dismiss Overruled. Exceptions were GER
tined to General Tern, and thus the case comes
ID. W Birnsy, for Mr.. Buell., commended that
II0elisa high misdsmeancr, over which ne Police
that the act Of June II $50 ths P0Iis:
punishable BY imprisonment IN the penitsn-
tiAry, and Of all offences against the or
dinances," sc. Under this grant It's Iurisdic-
demeanors to which simple assaults and bate
ries'' belong. The rule Of construction is II,
sons or things, the words are added and all
Others these general words are resttiete9 N
. meaning TO objects Of the like KIND win those
The statute organizing the Police Court divides
offences into three classes: ,- -,
/. Capital. .. Infamous or Penltentiary .. All
Some misdemeanors belong to the second olass,
and 'All others" to the third
THE ONE YEAR LIMIT.
misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment
Iotsn6es STa' Therefore above the statutory iuris
diotion Of the Police Court.
Under the crime act of 1881 and Its predecessors
offences may be classed by penalties as follows:
/. Capi,al-murder, treason and piracy.
2 PeRitentiary crimes formerly cspital-in.
death by Maryland law Of l741,) and third con.
fiotOn OF religious libel, death by Maryland Law
or I723,l punished by from seven to twenty years
.. PenitenlIary for terms specified in statute Of
: Every other felony; msdsmsanOr or offence
Libel. if an offence, falls in this fourth class.
Tho only Maryland statute af1Iing punish
libels and blasphelny. They were, for the FIRST
offence fno, and TO be bored through the
tongue: for the second. fine, and to be branded
in the forehead with the letter B; and for the
third. death without benefit Of clergy.
He gave examples OF
bow JOURNALISTS WERE PUNISHED
in the oldea times as follows:
the bar, fined $4,000, his book burned his ears
ont of, .piilorled twice, Imprisoned during the
kings pleasure. For a second offence, fined, ears
again cut OF. branded on both cheeks.
Daniel Deioe, nned, pilloEied, whipped and I'M
prtsoued fJr two years.
DR.. John Bostwick, fined G6, 900, pilloried and
imprisoned for life.
Holt fined. imprisoned for two years.
Peter AEEett, pillOried twice. Imprisoned thfr.
teen months, bonds for good behavior for life.
Lord George Gordon, fined $500, imprisoned
for two years, bonds Tor fourteen years.
Richard Mutt, fined C5oO pillOricd, imprisoned
John ShcOlreare was fined E6,pllOrIed, and i'm.
prisoned three years.
One Bedford, fined 1000 marks, imprisoned
three years, bonds fer good behavior during life
and taken on public days through the streets to
ler."
Richard Carlisle, fined 81, 500 and imprisoned
three years.
And continuing, argued that the National Con.
stitution, prohibiting ''orue and unusual punish.
ments," has abolished the following common law
Ting of the ears; Sitting the nose; setting in the
PlllOEy; mailing the ears to the Pllory; branding
nor ConsututiOn has abolished tbs remaining
common law penalties Of
Unlimited nne;
Unlimited Imprisonment, and
Binding TO good behavior for life, or less term.
These three, II any are in force in the District
Of oolumo is a. also the punishment for religious
These punishments make libel an Infamous
offence in the sense of the law and leave IL above
the jurisdiction Of the Police court.
THE STATUTE ORGANIZING THE POLICE COURT rs
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1. Because It creates Q Judge for six Years in
stead Of during good behavior.
2 Because 1t denies the right Of trial by jury In
criminal prosecutions.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. Riddle and Mr.. Evans for the power OF the
Police Court in such cases contend: That n
is presumed that IL will not be hal
In passing the act establishing the Police Court
of This District Congress was IN the exercise Of
right OF Legislation clearly conferred and defined
by the Constitution. II this is So this court will
not be hasty in declaring that the act establish
ing said court is unconstitutional and void. It
will demand that Q very clear case shall be made
before It promulgates such decision.
1t may even hesitate whatever views It may
entertain Of the legislation ITSELF whether upon
subject within the exclusive powers Of Congress,
as this expressly is, before It declares that
under this exclusive power" can properly az
Limitations upon the power Of Its creator, and thus
by Judicial construction, defeat the exercise of Q
Is this case one that requires such action by this
court?
the power conferred BY the drst article Of H the
Consultation, section g. II clause which is as fol-
ITO exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
Whatsoever in said District" (Story Const.,
In vol ? INA this author saws:
''The Indispensable necessity Of complete and
exclusive power op the part Of Congress at the
seat Of government carries It's OWE evidence with
He discusses and enforceI this doctrine by refer.
ence TO the historical facts which led to the re-
mGyHi Of the seat Of government from Philadel
phIA TO Princeton, N. J., and thence to Annapolis
Nd, before permanent seat was secured. =
And notwithstanding this clause OF the Con-
-stitution was opposed, as comforting dangerous
powers, it was finally adopted as the result OF ex-
perience, prudent forecast, and the we'll recog-
n sh5u necessity Of securing to thu aOysrpment
capital seat.
This grant Of the right Of exclusive legislation
does not appear 70 be in any manner limited, save
by what mag be supposed that wise and sound
discretion which may always be presumed to ex-
list In such body as the Congress Of the United
States. Az 70 the mode OF exercising this right OF
exclusive Legislation or the forms Of its legislative
power to review prcvfde sn soSsrsG ne
But suppose IL be conceded, for the purpose of
this argument, that no unusual powers are con.
ferTed by the Constitution over this District and
that all ts legislation iE subject to the Limitations
OF the bill Of rights, what then is the resultH
the N Ttels seet9n clause o.
IN caso OF impeachment, shall be by Jury" Ar
tiole further provides that mo person shall be
held TO answer for capital or otherwise Infamous
crime, unless upon presentment or Indictment Of
grand Jury" Article provides, "In all crimi-
of speedy and public trial by an partis al Jury"
The right Of trial BY jury in all criminal prose
cutIons never existed at common law in the irst
proceedings IN the nature OF police regulations
existing in sll States and governments. az Penn.
st. 50; Opinion Of Judge Strong, now OF the Su-
prene court Of the United StGtes;IT Nd. ST. 23l.)
What are We TO understand by ''crlm es" In arti.
clio 5, and capital or otherwise Infamous crimes"
In article s, and crime" in articles 9 Of the
amendments Of the Constitution?
Judge Story, in commenting upon article s,
says: This clause REQUIRES the interposltion Of q
grand jury before the party can be required
70 answer 70 any capital or infamous crime
charged against Elm" And this" he eays SIS
regularly true at the common law Of All offences
above the grade Of common mlsdemeAnors. The
PHRASE Infamous crime may be considered to
have acquired the established Qualification Of any
-orimO punishable In StSte prison. Indeed, the
punishment is the only criterion Of the infamy Of
tho crime"
In giving common law Interpretation to this
phrase, the supreme Court Of Massachusetts
have expressly recognized this idea in Q case Of
Jones VS.. Robbins, Gray, p. SAT.
The Chief Justice, in discussing this question
I'm that case, says:
"Then comes the practical dIfhculty, as before
suggested, in sseertainng, in particular cases
what are infamous punishments, or in other
words, what are Infamous crimes and offences
"The technical distinction between felony and
uisdemeanoT will not meet IL, because all larceny
e fsiOuy and yet petit larceny or plfering asEo-