, 1874-01-03

Of = Judge Of tho Supreme Court in the matter
Of an application for writ OF error wheu It nn-
de1took to style the allowance OF tue wt1t -
judicial outrase:" submit, very respect
fuly. that TuE TRIBUNE was wrons
il lint article md that it ought to do ~ the
Court, do when they discover an error in tho
record: correct it. Tiat juslita. ruat cGnns !.
g., to puraihrase rather freely, Let the law %
exec 1tcd, oven though Rafferty, should not be
executed until he has hnd another trla', tI1al
0ccordi,g to lao. TuLpEH.
CHICAGO, D.c. 81, 1879.
JoL1Er, H., Dec. 2G, 1879.
To the Editor At The Chicago Tribune:
SIN: like Tue TRIBUNE, but do not Like
such articles ~ tho ono published in to-days
issue, headed "a Judicial Outrage" and I an
surprised that, with nll the usual good senso and
judgment which have go long characterized the
management Of THE Tribune, an article should
be permitted denouncing tie Judges OF tho su-
prene Court for simply deciding law question.
Whether the question be in th, Rafferty, case or
any other, makes no difference; tho principle is
ali the same. The mob would say, No matter
what the Law Is, hang Rafferty, anyhow But tho
Law and common sense step IN and Say. con-
vlc:ion allowed against law is nothing moro nor
less than judicial murder. And. instead OF
denouncing the Judges for asccrtaintn5 the
law in auy case. ne should be. thanktu!
that we have Judiciary who have--In spite OF
the mob-spirit which, for the moment, takes
possession OF the people--the manllneRs, tho
and ali questions presented to them, and that,
too regardless Of the ma1, or tho crime with
which be stands charged.
Aud now, on reflection, is not TnE TRIBUNE Of
the opinion that it would be "a jndsclal oat-
rase' to hang even Chris Rafferty, If tits convic-
tion be against law 1t is an old marin OF the
law, TINT It is bette, that nine guilty N IN should
70 free rather than one innocent man should
suf1or. But, whether guilty or innocent, let the
law Take lts course. Any other doctrine than
this would most certainly be- "a judicial OUT
rage" MEMBER OF THE BAR.
To the Editor Of The CHICAGO Tribune:
SIN; In your issue Of tho 9th inst. notice
communication from ~ II. Fuller, objectlng
to the criticisms of the press on the action OF
the Supreme Court in the Rafferty, case, as tend
ing to bring the Supreme Court into contempt
before the public and to-day there is another,
to tho same effect, from Nr. I. n. Stiles. Nov,
cir, these very efforts provo conclusiTey to my
mind that these gentlemen feel that the Supreme
Court needs the aid Of their pens to uphold Its
action and to shield it from contempt. '' The
critcisms Of The press bring the Judiciary into
contempt" fo1sooth! As well might D. T. Gage
blame the press for his fall from the high estate
he held in the minds OF tho people two months
ago to the low degree be now holds. As well
might our indicted Aldermen, and all other
officers who have fallen in public opinion, charge
their fall to the criticisms OF the press.
Our laws are supposed to be made for the pro-
lection Of the life. liberty, and property Of law
abiding citizens, and for the punishment of
murdorors, thieves, and outlaws. The Judges
are placed on the Bench to administer these laws.
to the attainment OF the end thus sought III tue
most effective manner. The peonle who created
courts and employ these Judges are perfectly
competent to understand when that duty Is well
and faithfully performed, or when evaded, or
when reversed and their authority used to Pro
tect outlaws; else they are not competent to
create courts and omploy Judges
As officials are faithful and energetic IN tho
discharge Of their duties, the people honor ana
resnect thom,-as witness the career Of Judge
McAllister in tho Recorders Court of this city.
To the honor and cstee gained By the energetic
discharge of his duties in that Office land not by
superior legal loro or the quick detection o.
clerical c11ors) does be owe his present e1al1od
position. .-, .
The grounds for tho present superscdeas are
not made public but. from the article OF Mr.
Stiles, s one might infer nz.1t;as t9as ths II
that the warrant for tho arrest Of Rafferty, Was
illegal, and therefore killing the officer was
homicide and not murder, and the jury should
70 have found. think tho1e are several ques-
tl0QS lQFOlFEu ILLS oo AAAo
understood. Alauy people suppose policeman
has authority to arrest any person IN the ace OF
committing a crime or misdenoauor, or that is
suspected or accused OF the same, without other
order than his atar. nafferty's final arrest was
80 made. and most OF our thieves aud burglars
are arrested by tue police without speciat war
rant.
1t the time Rafferty, committed the murder,
warrant was produced aud read The officer
serving the writ supposed it was legal; Rafferty,
believed the same. ind had no cause for think
ing otherwise; and common senBe would say the
warrant was legal rs to Rafferty,, 30 far US its
icca1ity may be urged to Justify his killing the
officer. Any other conclusion destroys the force
Of ali yrits for arrest. II Rafferty, IS to reslst
M officer in the execution OF warrant
for arrest to the killing, until the legality OF
the writ is fully proven, every other citizen has
the saue right. A maxim Of Law is, that the IN
teption OF the accused at the time Of committing
the criminal act has much to do in asgrayatlug
or pallating the crime, and should largely gov
ern Jury in finding their verdict. IT, therefore,
Rafferty, IL Justified in resisting an officer, be-
lieying the writ 1egul, though really illegal,
smother person, under like circumstances, be-
lioying tho writ Illegal though perfectly legal in
every point, would much more be justified in re-
sisting it's execution by every means ct his
command
hope you will continue to criticise our courts
until our Judges better understand their duties,
OF until our people become aware Of their use
| lessness aud frivolity. REAsoS.
| CHICAGO Dec. g, 1873.