New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-26
ruE TWEED APPEAL CASE.
CONCLUSION OF JUDGE COMsTocK's ARau-
MFNT,

ppS1suMENTs COMMENDED TO BE IhLEGAir-'hh
JUDGE SAID TO HAVE GONE BEYOND HE
POWERS IN gwEEDs sENTENCE-ihI iN''N'
MyNr DESCRIBED AS DEFECTIVE
Albany. March 25--In the Court Oh Appv"'
to-day Judge George F. ComstocS, o. ',.an, He
n rveed resumed and concluded DIS "s s.ns
nrooeeded 10 discuss tho question OF lOinuo. .u,
"a accumulated punishments he saie '"e 49, 80. a.
90. -. -. ., the accumulated sentences pronounceo 20
.n,. ...es ia founded mainly on the assumed uoo -.
,b.t dis,inct ofenses especially mlsue"oa" -, ,h,s
,awf,llv united and tried in one INDICTMENT .sh
.o.t,,ate the conclusion Is drawn thst "s man. 80,
-. a. there are counts ofenses may 10 imp
men'e ., osSs them efectua II is further claimed
-. 90. ,,nishment NAV be pronounced 10 oes" ""
ov,ons one pronounced at the same lnstsn. Term
nates and so on ad inJfntfnm' no" 0"'e =. 1
20 wear an appearance plausible enou-n rH,
eeiye incautous minds on ."is ror
sns.,,on can be answered. first h mas never
s"o'"' s.ns,na that az to both feionies ana
,.a.me.nors an indictment may contain pur"i'y oi
eonnts setting the oeRse in dereht moues
IN meet tho possibilities of proof and th,s proposon
includes any crime nnder dnercni M "a az
consisting different degrees according 10 'e aots W
the transaction. Tao obscarity IN tao staten e1u os
nv ' Judges wno have not looked beyond
text books has led perhaps ,5Dnon SO that the
jadge himself does not measure inc lupor Vi hs
aud what mountains OF error oeh ais ""a ,hnmt much
care and crcumocutiOn OF phraselt WIZ pe io,uv,
who VIII try. Quite ullncult ~
idea the Oinder Of oflrnsSs ~ sc without
10 include an modes Of stating one ctluiai az, I'm
using words so Droau as 10 4N' AFi
one aI r"mmon law there was one difference in the
administration criminal Justice in feiOnles ana ms
,icmeanors In feones, winch were mostly caplal
ana 5nG this was gTe1 as HeieRt
plurality OF felouous crimes could not he nlted 10 one
indictment and trird time, ana 50 IL came 10 Oe
loosely said that msdemeanors could De )oned ur"us
that reason against the practice ana not exist H. VOL
of Chtty on Criminal Law, PIP 6545S5, marRlnall But
there was another reason gwen qle as vVstn, ny
ioIuder would conIound the jury. Ihls reason was
slways the same both rs 10 mSdcmcan0ts ana ieIoues
and now there is dih3reuce whaeytr because tue
right OF challenge is now aud with us the same III po'h
classes OF crime. -. A.. A. ,,,,ao, 10
several of ,nses even feOues, indictment not
bad in law. This correct prOposton nut ape 10 ue
~ omfes.eGly allows the same off se to statet
different oruse in another court. the law VIII not con
nressy allows al Its comneHcem mt. curiosity or the
criminal tnat the same ofense including an us
GhnuOns ami degrees may Oe SCI lOitA I'D any hdoO4
ro,ber .con1ecIed ohense aud yet again you cannot
unte oicuscs IN Que lndicm at all Ihere
IS s1petlrcs great beauy aUd great uuhty IN ltgu
fiction aud here we have one OF the pest WdlIe IL -
verv necessary the prosecution should DC allowed
TO state oncnsc ~ Gnclent WAYS 70 meet Tue ever
vary luz contingencies of proof yet II Is plainly true
thai two statements OF tue time ana manner of
committing single crime iuvoNe IN exact contra
pleading. NnctIrr tho twO statements are In one
count in Two couGts, the ding would Dc sen,
necessity The notiOn of setting forth tue matter IN
count HuOtltf OI-uhe uds btcd hNcbNcu'
Hut the fiction having answered tins precise purpose
IuIs is he end Oft Bishop Cr Pro. %, see. 1857 For
prS'yyegon ruin resumes IT. throne. If You
that prosecution elect between tlc counts me an
ever IS Iat rrcnt counts introduced u meet
the proof respect tod sdko oIense oI uthstcIlon
IyOu move To- qdash or IA arrest tI9 a9sTer Is 'Ie
belu a the Nne true That Ouy one crime a uauslc-
M !. inc actual su jirct of the trial You the c
tlon t. meet the objection Of dup city, or rather OF re-
puguanly III satlLs the SIne CIiue IN several ways,
and Sou ,ncn throw 1t away. TLe frequent want OF
perspcuI III statement OF the Teton, aud Its uses
no dUIuj have OCCASION y II - 4a'se statement OF
til law as 10 the 1.nns OF Ornses Speaking perhaps
wore CORRECTLY has been stated III forms OF Ian
guiec -ee, but Only seein u assert tbe rue Oi
where the meaning Is merely that tue same crime NAV
be neuDOusy SCI IVf'h as aho'Aef crime IN another
count
lie then traced how and when these ambiguous cx-
rlessIons found their way luto the law-bOoks TIC
judge then proceeded al length to analyz adjudged
cases N England and this country bearing on the sub
jrct q Joining ofTcnscs in prosecution. lie then
proceeded as follows:
From the fore going review the conclusion is easily
reached that, far the mere language or the law
allows distinct ofenses to be joined IN one prosecution,
tue meaning onnseb distinct IN tue name OF i'll
The statement Of teen, nat not dlSuntt as lnvoNng
sorarije dI-.n,t and disconnected criminal acs, aud
thc result y one eohNlct'n an one plu''u M
verde. may SPECIAL fading tue I1ct-, OF IL may De
geuera Que court, OF On eome 81 me count, or Ga
AL the counts %. TIE lHdittu-uts l. al modes ahd
forms tie indictment j. W.T. aui ~ ls tue uAl Tue
o. include varoJs ACES. 81 count wiz permit II under
the pti M a. h. Ill delIa led aud Tue verdict
lowtv,r genera, mv4us mat the crime somewhere
CHARGED IN TIE indictment has committed and IL
means more than tA4 al.AOi uluitilAIous charges
arr slsta4LvI b, Oula-tt-fe .g'0f.
TIE LAW OPPOSED TO TIE UNION OF DISTINCT
CRIMES.
He then cited numerous 4nples Of the law OF the
hand being opposed the union OF distinct crimes in
inc sense unoonnected crimes, in prosecution 1t
f,iows that the Judgment complain Of, far il
exceeds highest punishment for the oiiense for
aly Of set forth IN the Indictment is without au-
thoriy OF law aud the prisoner should be dscharG d.
Ihe sentence 80 far a awf a having been July
mated First, result OF what has pre-
,ovcrei.n, arItiLn IA supposed offender different
counts try hun and obtain general verdict of gdty,
the different CHARGES arc blended into one accuse
81 oH"' dctnsnis y conV,cton and punishment Tor
the highest OGcnsc charged. 10 affirm The contrary
involves tue assumption that tne sovereign power Is
overriding own established rules Of procedure and of
law and seekinga result III direct opposl non to those
rules purposy u VcnGedDCe OF oppression IN
man can lawfully he placed Trial for more than
crime time and before one jury, IL must De en-
hrcy iDsuppOsaole, even as question OF lnterprea-
intention, That the state is proceeding IN VIOLA
ton of it, own Law" MaelaeT 1t DC "a" py StatHte or com
mon law. The IIoposluen Is ptInap,, oetter
expressed by saylHs that' as me state ,ri or
Of several many ofenses in one prosecution, but
bas ordained the contrary therefore the State or
.lthoush 1t does in its law the Of
tunes charging aud proving distinct aets 70 make out
Judge IN prOnOuuCing sentence, accumulates penalties
beyond the highest measure Tor the highest Ohense
charged. lie gives impossible effect to the prOsecu
hOu because II not possible that the sovereign so in
tends The being authentic expression of
his meaning Will, his attorney may wraDgle and
argue that The law Of criminal procedure is different,
but when he ascerdincd 10 be WRONG it is also
Gained that the judge has beyond the outer limits
Of the proceeding when lac mas thus accumulated pun
isDlDeEt
A REVIEW OF THE TRIAL
L,tus look at the trial The accused person COM
plaincd Of the tremendous accumulation Of charges.
he said, If arrai0ned for a plurality of crimes,
the indictment ought 10 be quashed." This re-
fused in accordance with authority Of cases.