National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-25

Richard Mutt, ufs4.) publishsr Of the London
Evening Poet, was fined $500, pilloried and i'm.
prlsoned for two years.
John shsbossre CiTss) was fined, pillorisd and
Imprisoned three years.
One Bedford, for writing pamphlet agains.
the doctrine of hereditary right, was fined one
| thousand marks, Imprisoned three years. put un-
through the streets to the different courts, with
paper on his hat marked "iibeler," in large let
ters.
Richard Carlisle ps1s) was fined 81, 500 and i'm
prisoned three years.
From these and other cases make the follow
ing English law
SUMMARY OF LIBEL PENALTIES:
Cutting out the tongue, cutting OF the ears, slit
ting the nose, setting In the pillory, mailing the
ears to the pllory, whipping, branding letters on
the cheeks or forehead, fine at discretion, i'm
prisonment ~ discretion, binding to good be-
hayior for life or less term.
None Of these penalties having been abolished
BY name, except whipping and the pillory, they
are still inorce IN this District unless abolished
by the terms Of the Constitution Of Maryland or
OF the United States or the laws OF either, or IN
less they are Inconsistent with the nature OF our
new political Institutions, for the adoption Of
the common laws Of England by Maryland was
not in effect absolute. Its nature Is shown in the
case OF The State Vs. Buchanan, and reported in
Harris Us Maryland reports, IS followE
"The third section OF tho bill OF rights, hich
declares that the Inhabitants Of Maryland are
untitled to the common law Of England" &C.,
England anterior to the colonization, or to judi
cial adoptions here OF any part Of the common law
during tho cOntlnuance Of the colonial govern.
listed here, either potentisily or practically. and
as It prevailed in England at the time, except
snSh pSrt ions 2, ~ are tSe W1n 1ns
political Institutions"
Nor was the adoption by Congress OF the laws
OF Maryland, including the English common law,
absolute In effect. It was subordinate to tho
Constitution Of the United States Congress was
not competent to adopt any law or body Of laws
conflicting with that instrument. And as It for
bids the infiiction Of ''cruel and unusual punish
ments," all the
HORRIBLE DARBARIsMs
of the common law penalties for libel and Of the
Maryland statutes became illegal. But three of
these penalties are not Objectionable on that
score, and remain in forcs in this District to wit:
fine and imprisonment at discretion OF the court,
and binding to good behavior for life or . less
term.
The only one Of the penalties which is Of I'M
portance in this argument Is imprisonment at dis
erection Of the court. II libel exists In this Dis
trict as q crime there be no doubt that . sem
tenceto thirteen months imprisonment would be
valid II pronounced BY Q competent court. But
have already shown that any crime for which tho
sentence may be imprisonment for longer period
than one year Is above the statutory jurisdiction
OF he Police COURT. The warrant, therefore, In
this case was illegally issued.
This closes my argument on the nrst point.
On Saturday the Court informed counsel that
they had decided to hear the prosecution In
answer to General Blrney's FIRST point. A. q.
General Blrney occupied q few minutes only.
ton, and affirmed the Judgment Of the court be-
low denying the Jurisdiction Of the Police Court
in such cases. The court was unanimous. The
Chief Justice based his opinion on the following
section OF the act creating the Police Court:
THAT there shall be established in the District
Of Columbia . court to be called the Police Court
Of the District Of Columbia, which shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction OF all offences
against the United States committed in the Dis
Infamous crimes-that Is TO say, Of all simple as
saults and batteries and all other mlsdemeanors
not punishable by Imprisonment In the peniten-
tary, and Of all Offences against any Of the ordi-
OF Georgetown or laws Of the LeVy Court Of the
county Of Washington"
He said that II was evident that Congress did
not intend under the grant Of Jurisdiction con-
tanned in that section to include malicious libel
within the cases over which they gave the court
jurisdiction.
All the other Judges concurred mainly on the
constitutional ground that the defendant was en-
titled to be tried BY jury, and that court not pos
sssssd Of . jury could have no cogniIancs Of his
case.