New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-09
LOCAL MISCELLANY.


THE CUMULATIVE TWEED SENTENCE.
ARGUMENT or DAVID DUDLEY FIELD BEFORE THE
GENERAL TERM OF THE SUPREME COURr-DIs-
TRIcT-ArrORNEY PHELPS AND MR.. PLCKHAM IN
REPLY.
For four long hours yesterday IN the Cen
era Term OF the Supreme Court the counsel Tor " d.
Tweed aud the representing The People fought
the question OF the Legality the celebrated con-
yicts imprisonment. The Judges who heard the argu-
Judges Charles Daniels Charles Donobue ana
j. RWest0rO0k JddSe Brady a. his own request ala not
sit, owing 10 the fact that some objection had been
made TO him because he had appeared in the case
hitherto, and rendered decision branch OF H.
Although David Dudley Field undertook the argument
yesterday on behalf of Mr. Tweed neary al the counsel
that side appeared-Messrs WIN. o. and willard
b rtlett EIhu Root Dudley Field and VIM. Edclsieln.
Twceds private secretary present: as wei as great
number OF interested spectators. On the side Of tie
people, Wheeler II. Peckham and District Attorney
Phelps appeared. and Doth took part in tho argument
NJ Field opened tho ease, stating prominently
THAI this eertorar TO this court from the Oyer
and Termnor Court to bring up the proceedings there
on application FOR discharge upon writ VI habeas
corpus. Judge Barrett, in compliance with a decision
OF the General Term tho Shanhs ease, held thai the
proceedings in the Tweed matter could DC reviewed
on ha5eas corpus, and qlashed the writ almost
simultaneously. new witt was applied Tor
aitrrward, aud Judge Lawrence made 1t re-
turDabe at the oyer ana Termlner. On the
return NJ the writ In the Oyer and Termner, Judge
Barre { said Ice -tt OF he same OpllOu hat no
matter what the defects IN th record they formed
ground whatever FOR tn d4charG bHt ao we'd the
proceedings 20 20 on 80 as 20 make rnInB on each
matter offered n eyl lencG on DcIai OF IWood Most OF
1t he rejcted but 10 ucver holess up the pres
en arg mrn TO test The corr cness or that lec ION
Mr. Fied-The rclatOr was cominILed 10 the Pcnileu
tarY Nov. 90 1873, and has been there Imprisoned
ever since, and ne has paid me fle o. S2o Imposed on
hm b. the first sentence. Now that THIS sentence has
been executed he seek, to be discharged from cOnfne
rent uA.el t1 subsequent sentences iAere we're Two
trials, both before the ane iId<e inc jary having dis
agreed upon che first On JrIl it suggested BY
the ieentant5 couhs" mat tLe ndatrht charged ~
ferent osnscs, upon which 10 was possible that cGmua
i've sentences might Dee demanded Ta~, possible
result, rcpudlrd BY the -cCutInk counsel, and
also by the Judge, who expressed himself without
least hesitation and with great emphasis On
SOU nc u'eI VAli ldl-u'"1: Oi Tue contrary, III my
Judgment. the party Is thu5 charged wJu variety
Of misaemeanor' IN a slnge indictment, instead OF
having az x o. iuu''Weu'5 dSHSJ mn. Is greatly rt-
cged tom the consequences OF tue oHenses from the
IS fact that they are nIJIgdJ IN single iluctment
hose counts are all true, and there were Is
ing ihcu ~ = s-s o indictment Us uAIersia3I, VIII
reduce tl4c punishment u single one" Aud again
ms nave hed liio WLch several MISCONCEPTIONS are
charged the same Indictment and there be cOnyic-
Ton cllher on QUO OF az ut to purpose q" punishment
tler can DE- ou' aiAEle llShcn. thIl Is an I4Atls
q 81 - tho Court has gone. The Court could no
urthcr. except with great inconsistency They are at
hJcry to prove as many as thy can ana the jury viii
render their verdict Il Acy Ind the party gGJy under
tA.s count and guilty under Others the verdict Will be
rendered INIT when the Court pr0nOunccS Judgment
it must look at the n'iicment a. an entirety"
lie said on this POINT Court bound by its own
rule laid down 40 the nrst TRIAL. IAs was as much
the law, the Judge having declared himself As
thousand statutes would nave been oad could not De
changed ~ thc last moment dler the "l luL couJ-
Sci hat CONDUCTED his defense IN conformity 10 It, ana
verdict had been rendered On the theory thlt only
one sentence cOud NC pfOnOah'eu IL was hmaltrl 70
INC de!euse whether verdict should DC obtained
on one or al { Of tg 0 sOu ddSus ia 5 5ae
supposed that the defendant could be imprisoned
often "a count was found against MN they would,
IA tie PERFORMANCE o. tAOlr Guty, nave lou-At ~ INN
count b. count. Bat on tue theory that the Court had
announced tLey had no lnouFe lor ms. II they had
they would nave presenter inherent ar-lt.cAIs III
respect different c0uIts. aId especially 10 those
winch charged deAni GeEces AIier NY 1870 wnen the
defendant went OH Oh once rs S'petNISot. AAey
might satisfied the ny or the Court Of the III
suite cAcy Of particular counts ana particular PROOF.
rhey were thrown on Ter Eut.d oy tlc
prosecuting counsel ana The Court. Good iAith, II
morning more rrIireH thAt th I.ee .a. "" ~Hen INC
hr-t ir"i DeEdh' 'hd never 49, vi A. uru"
both tral unt arer the verdict, should be adhered 10
when the second ral closed. BaV WAstner adhered 70
Oru 1 Al
Mr. Phelps referred 20 me extraordinary character Of
the case, Oy from the crlln 3 charged dld proved,
but al'o IRON the ingenuity ana n~dt ~ tHe coL we
counsel. aud tAe metuod'In which an atemp was made
20 rcFiew ne alleged errors COMMITTED III tAe Court Ne
low lie Thought ID OI greater lnpOi tnre IOF thr au-
u justice IN TINS city TO de6e NINE whether
the questions rdIscd were properly revle here,
han 10 determine tho l1esIons tnenstife>i i'r tieY
only IN Ct one cu-e one person. WI 10 II IL Is eSta3-
Isucd tuat the sol mn udil tcauJhi OF our highest
courts OK criminal jurisdiction re 10 be summary
disposed OK py tAe opinion OK any uia-!a.raio
ga b
r rryieW errors can be dispensed N.tI. nni mere
,.p lie no writ, Of error Courts OF Appeal MIR.
PHELPS Then reviewed az length the pOLts taken by the
cuil!-rl Tor tie iriru t.lAt tIc Tenor OF has
uuu 70 prove that case, uad be "A tri3d where moro
tnan one ufense mad been AITget in tne Indictment
He rtrd many authorities SHOW that the slneut
decision of any OF competent jurisdiction cannot
ne reviewed upon hlDeds corpus. 4 tIU.e lId urcn
c-rOr the remedy bY cct tUrLr IItfc never udd
been instance IN the history OF inc state IN winch
sura power, a. claimed exists here, AaI been IL
tempted % ne exercised.
Mi /. cslaIn devoted almost his whole attention 20
the question of cumulative punishment lie CharaC-
fcrZed As OF very uttl5 weight TIE pDiIt rse 10
what had been sad 10y the Court former tr TO the
If ct tAaL uuiy puAlsAuenJ could De luhc-rd 10
sUo.lI be remembered that not s.Sn Of claim
punishment could DE- inflicted shout be a~std 20 De
uhc,d beyond the punishment Tor single oE-u-' Ile
egu!ctrr 81 thIJ 10 advanced 40 tue pOlnf nj
which tha suggc, ION made swas such that al the
Drpsecutlun could hone for escape without
dict oil acuuittIl. Therefore, no Thought tnlre WAS
neither prvpucty, reason. nor rSht IN this
contrasting or the language OF tho Judge
yyuu irlrd me clae upon Jne TWO occasions. Mr.
prrkbam called attention OF the Court TO tine prn
cipe involved IN the case lrrespectNey or any qIcs-
technical criminal, statutory, Or common LAW,
pOlntng OUT absur1tY OF puul3hlDg man FOR one
oucnse after he LAS committed several. There no
reason why several charges should not DO joined IN
criminal proceeding any more than several causes OF
action IN Il civil proceeding and nothing cOuid be found
Mr. Field, ana At the argnment closed tue Judge
announcing That tneY would probably GOt deci~e E1e
matter before week after next.
THE RAILROAD COMPACT.