New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-09-07


the entire trial that has led TO express any opinion
that question whatever that might by possibility
have saeced the jury, although we, as lawyers Know
that IL could have had NO legitimate eject even II
expressed"
In the interval between the adjournment and Saturday,
Judge Davis gave the question the most careful
animation. going all the authorities and elementary
writer's the subject On Saturday the motion In arrest
was heard and decided. Mr.. Trcmain then made his
motion for sentence each count The counsel for the
defendant wered at length. but failed to produce
single authority adverse 10 the power to pronounce
several sentences. After hearing the argument the
Judge said substance that he had carefully examined
the question: and believed that the law authorized the
Court TO pronounce sentences not each count but on
each class of counts charging separate ohense. and
that his duty to pronounce sentence In some de-
gree with the crimes. For the fifty two
Ofenses sentence Of imprisonment was pronounced on
! twelve and fines were imposed on all ~
The crimes OF which Tweed stood convicted were ali
alike in their character and In the puni Imposed
by statute. and they all committed to the INJURY OF
YORK They had been tried wtSut confusion or erobar
wholly documentary, Which traced by demonstration
the stolen money into the hands OF Tweed aud his con-
his own hands Not one word Of evidence in contra:
dction explanation WAS given The criminal himself
crimes charged were InsdeInenos for Of
fetal mseondnct and NEGLECT but they involved "a, hs
Official oath the obtaining Of money by fase pre,enses
eeacas Of f' scal "stiSn t co".rsey Win
other officials and persons, 10 plumber me public
treasury when it was his duty to guard aud project.
Stripped OF technicaiities what farce It would have
for one year these crimes each involving
moral larceny OF from $4,000 TO 100000 eimply ne
einso tried indictment instead " fifty! For
ponouneing the sentences. Judge Coinsfock deounces
Jge Davis as one who trampsa '1r unho pfo ,s
country Why then WIS Judge Colnstosk 80 long J s
the bench Committed such outragcs upon justice law,
and liberty, silent for whole year; ana not w
his open to denounee the terrible inquity How
could such patriot have slep an hour win TIE Const,
ton fragments and our laws and liberties scattered
~ the winds T.
PRECEDENTs FOR CUMULATIVE SENTENCES.
| There is hut fitting answer TO Judge Comstocks
bold assertion that the sentence without precedent
i'll law or authority, and that Ia by statement OF the
evidences upon which the General Term ana
judge Davis to their conclusions These arr not
produced to show the decision OF the Court Of APP
peas is not law tor that would he public rebelonl,
hut TO rebuke and expose the mad and foolish assertion
that there was no authority precedent for the oier
i'll one indictment OF several oenses and their joint trial.
and punishment by cunnlatNe sentences.
The only statute in this State on the subject OF c'iin
latye punishlnents is be found in r. s. page 700,
See ! |, and is in these words:
whe sny person shall Of osnscs
either oense npcn wncs he shall he sentenced
mence at termination Of the first term OF imprisonment as
the may be.
statute applies only to convictions or separate nfict
tncnts and not convictions OF separate offcnses
charged In the Indictment. The statute however
distinctly recognizes the principle of cumulative punish
ments when the Court, upon several couyictions
fails III form 20 impose sch phllsiiieLl II sli..,s nv
omis- on ard prevents the several terEis FROM RAINING
ccncurreny. The recognition Is valuable inash'tL us
II shows that there nothing In the principle HSt ID
conflict with the due administration OF criminal Justice
Moreover this statute simply decayatory OF tho com
mon law. Gtevisrr's Notes, 3 r. s. 2d Ed. p. 1874,
The question: the absence of any statute governing
the law the decisions Of the Courts and IN the elen"
tary works OF recognized authority i'y me m
the 18Th day of April, 100 is adopted a. he law 81 TINS
as moiiri or altered by statute Constitution. See II
Article u. IL the absence therefore ofeprgndicy ID
find what le cuaIlOn law OF England Was III ,fii
subject 100 year, II TO he taken rs the law aded
in this State by the Solemn form OF The Constitution
and If we find il uniform recognized by the decisions
dica OF the Courts in the absence Of explicit deciDn
judgments upon il witLou. forfeiture OF jurisdiction
| COMMON LAW Of ENGLAND.
What then the common law Of England on the sub
icc OF the ionder Of al ms, nenOrs in the same
indictment and punsmeEts which mieht be imposed
in suc cases Oh the conviction OF several 0enscsi Fs,
as To the elementary textbooks. The earliest are Hates
Pleas of the Crown" IIawknss Pleas of the Crown,
and Burnss Justice" Lord Hale wrote more Than 200
years ago. e died in 1876 He states the rule then
existing IN these words
Touching the oin:er Of persons ofcnses ud!c
ment. II there be one offend ana seyeid c'pl on Hsis
, s%a a. n4 ~ s s c Grce @smd %
er s thugs though a; several
may Joied in one indictment q Ha!es fle's oil uic
Hawkins states the law thus:
Every ntcaent must either charge man with some par
" All certainly expressed. q HAWKINS reas Of Tie crow"
itGnss Justice loys down the rge g follows:
II there ad several odrnses committed By
M East Pcs Of Inc Crown recognizes the rule and
cites in It's support In which bcnch OF seven
Judges held an indictment good which contained 'tNo
several capital charges"
The mac modern prominen. English textbooks q. Of
Criminal and Russell on Crimes. Archbold states
The rule as 70 Inc londgr OF se sr y, q @ o'
separate onenses joined in one BILL they may AMI
Chiuty repeats the rule 10 the jo.nder OF Of
lenses and a. to the punishment OF crimes he says Vo
50 he is charged with several oeses at the same
the kind he may he sentenced t. s raj terms
OF soplnent after the conclusion vi the oh,i
! He lays tbs down a general rule applicable to par
ties charged with several oiensts at tie saline time a
the kind The authorities he cites we're c,ses o.
conviction separate indictments. In which eases II
could make difference whether or not the Oifens"s
were Of the same KIND" Mr. Russell, at page 1850 OF
AS an assault is E it is competent to The
prosecutor TO insert sc'cl counts IN ia, same Iop
men for in oases inie.ir 10 felony practice q1asIg
clarge he VIII proceed does not ex ST. .,,
Mr. stephens, very able modern writer, III his cen
era view OF the Criminal Law pages 1877 ard lss,
discussing the modern =, r ,l mat dgtact elone "
There can be why jury slodd and upon al
S S he shc SoH c Of this Gsroa appears
tact that il wolld merely apply to ieones the law
| which Il present applies 10 ms ,lnea-i r. .
BY these Is 10 he seen that by the law as
all crimes committed Ivy the person, whether felo
MES mslene anors. could be joined and tried n tle
same Indictment Subsequent by the decisions Of the
courts the rule feonies so far changed that
where several ieioneS were charged III one m m
would proceed hut as 10 mstInenors no shch chaise
mcntary writer's in England the reeoe nized
tuuing unchanged except a. to ei0iles aud upon 'hc