New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-13
THE COURTS.
TWEED'S EFFORTS TO ESCAPE PUNISH
MENT UNSUCCESSFUL.

LgGAI-rHR WRIT NOT THE PROPER WAY TO
TEST ERRORS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGs-rHE
CIVIL. SUIT AGAINST TWEED-TIE SUBSTITUTION
OF THE CITY As PLAINTIFF. INSTEAD or THE
COUNTY. ADJUDGgD PROPER
The General Term of the Supreme Court
has rendered tho decision on the appeal OF william M
Tweed from the refusal Of tho Court OF Oyer and Tor
miner to release him habeas corpus Tne proceeding
was begun after Mr.. Tweed had spent one year In
prison and paid fine, thus dlsobarging the penalty
imposed for count In the Indictment In tho argu
ment on the writ tho authority Of tho Court OF oyer
and Termner to try Tweeds at all. the regularity
OF It's and above ALL the legality OF its sue
cessive sentences were assaiied. Tho Court before
which tho argument was mato consisted OF Judges Dan
iels, westbroOh, and DonOhue. The first two Judges
have delivered ycry long opinions OF which the oow
ing IA the substance. All the JUICES concur IN both
opinions.
Judge westbrook after reciting at some length the
proceeding OF the Court below discussed az the pren
mary question the power OF the Court or oicer 0eioo
habeas corpus act. persons committed detained by
virtue OF final Judgment or docree OF any cOpetenI
tribunal were excluded from ts Deng' %, neoSs
but was argued that this permitted al. sne
be raised order to ascertain whether the Court was
connecticut TO try the case or prononaee or
cannot he overlooked ANY officer authorzed to per,
I IHf~ w ss ou' Can OF It po tSs tho judgment Of
the highest court OF original jurisdiction should be
officer Inferior Judicial rauk 10 tue JUG ut or ana
Termlner, yet empowered to issue such witt Apart
from this incongruity. 1t would allow any sacn 0ncer
where he the 0: the court had been ex
ceeded to let The criminal g. free, aud u tls genera
Ia tho 4lst section authorizing discharge IN
civil only where the Jurisdiction OF the court or
officer has exceeded WHAT would become OF mo
prohibition the section TO inquire into tho Legality
orjnstce of am process Judgment or decfeo speeou
Az result Judge westbrook holds that the words
"competent tribunal" have a an rent meaning rom
mean tribunal having Jurisdiction OF tho subject mat
ter ana OF the person, the whole act II harnnohious
Such tribunal IL competent to try the question ana
the person before 1t. Tue decisions OF sucn bCny ae
to reviewed by superior one, and rot SUMMARY
disposed OF by inferior officer. Judge WesCDrooK
then examines at some length. the bearing upon
this point In this state. lie then applies ths
conclusion to the questions OF TINS particular case
first the alleged illegaty OF the several CONVICTIONS
aud sentences under tho same indictment; second me
la uness Of the jlry, and thrd tho legaiCy oi ne
sentences to imprlsonlrnt AS 10 the nf,', 10 aou5
that Jurisdiction OF tho Court over the crimes anu
being conceded tho point presents nothing
more than the " legdhty OF tne sehtence Wimn Was
pronounced, which the very thing the Statute Tor
babe them hab las corpus to inquire INTO Ine ex-
cesveness OF Ju tgnent III crnina cas- cdlno. oe
inquired this proceeding. Ample power 10 40 80
conferred in civil cases. but not ia criminal ones
Does present question OF excess OF Jnrls,
dictOni Mr. Tweed tried and convicted or several
misdemeanOrs; the aggregate OF the several punish
ments no; III excess oI tle powers or TUG Cour Lac
only point urged il that the J0lnder OF the seVoru
Oenses in single Indictment their investigation upon
single trial. ald the several convictions ano JUDGEMENTS
thereon illegal The power to 40 the several ACES
dicton having boon acquired, the intervening steps
simply questions OF practice which may
be pronounced erroneous on review, but cannot
and do not render the Judgments void II there was
mlsionder Offenses indictment the COur5 dld
thereby lose It's Jurisdiction IL Is the case OF ms
joinder of causes OF action In aciy Grla 10 sustain
the proposition OF Mr. Tweeds counsel 1t must DC shown
that the grouping OF o5Dses in single indictment Is 50
Illegal make all subsequent steps tlereundcr VOID
To 40 80 IL be proved that edcn Indictment nuSV
DE for only single crime when would Do 10 prove tno
Illegally OF greater part OF criminal convictions,
and the judicial murder Of many individuals The fea
soning which starts with the assumption that court
has no jurisdiction OF several ono ses charged IN SIR
gle indictment OyerlJOks all prccedonts and Practice
Judge WestDrook mere recItes precedent from the
earliest dates to snow tue common prActse OF inciui
lag various Oenses in one cment aud to show mat
the practice OF quishlns hac,menEs or eirE m to
prosecution to eject winch charge they VIII prCceeu on
mas only existed in relation to Ieonles DE cllos the
Tchborno ease, where the charge O PERJURY was con
tanned IN two couAts' one ior perjury on ~ pre-
vl0us trial ana one for perjury Ia an AIN laVlt
M Zach cou1 and tbs Court Sentenced tho for
years ON each count He also cites the laws OF
Massachusetts, Connecticut anu Pennsyyania, u Snow
that the rule prevails there. Ho also cites the
case decided IN the OH Court Of Errors, wdere IL Is de-
cGed tnit indictments for felony, charging two Oh
fenses In separate counts IL was mater Oh dlscre
ton the Court 10 q1dsh tho Indictment or compel
the prosecution elect which they would press; nut
ground for motion IN arrest OF judgment; ana an
other case courts IN which tho Joining OF distinct
misdemcanOrs has been held proper
on these presidents Judge West6rOOk declines TO
hold that the presentation OF tue several ch"rges
against tho relatOr IN one Indictment was irregular
aud informal to rendor the whole prOcc edu. void
and the conviction nullty; anu certainly upon tn
iurisdictonal Questions, tue relator Was without
remedy.
or not tired Dy a competent jury, tie argument
rest, on the fact that the jury was chosen under
laws Of 1872 and 1873 providing new sest OF The gli
Court 10 is impossible to present TINS question upon
nabeas corpus as IL enters 30 largely into tne merits OF
the trial III there Is any vriic III IT, shen any erroneous
decision to the selection Of Juror III the opinion OF
the officer gran ting the Writ. empowers him t. cafge
the prisoner fne point however Is without force; he
mode and manner OF tue selection OF jury Is under
legislative control. ana change OF law IA
objection. Nor can the argument that Mr. Tweed was
MOI allowed mis- full numocr OF peremptory challenges
be entertained Ii Is error, IL can Oe reviewed prop
erly The objection that Mr. Tweed could not be
$50 is also disposed Of by Judge Wosbrook Ihe
liable under section 50 OF the act under when he
was punished, because Il special provision had
been made ioI tno punishment OF the de-
for the punishment of every wu neglect or duty when
special iion Is made In section 10 or the act
sion made Tor the punishment O oupefVISOrs Tor
neglect OF duties required OF Them rs SUPERVISORS To
jurisdiction has decided Otherwise ana ITS nni judg-
cannot be reviewed on This proceeding; second,
The fines are PAD third Secti II IL prescrlUes
penalty be recovered Ia clyI action Tor refusal
eject perform duty AMI not for any punishment
Of the crime. 49,
associate Judge Daniels to decide. and concludes MS
In the decision whicn we are to give We are 20 an.
swer supply legal questions. No discretion to abae
tighten puDlsnin5tL5 cohiied to u.s. Nor Is there any
opportunity upon TINS proceeding To raYew any alleged
rors upon the trial, the improper exercise
erection 10y the Court before which conviction
place We certainly do not lmputo any Of abuse
OF discretion, simply desire say that TO the
istence oi any such, opinion Is expressed. In
upniou the q, and Iermuer in disc1l gug the writ
OF naDeas corpus ana Remaining the PRISONER,
United 10 error and that such order DC affirmed"
Judge Dduc!s, III ais opinion, examines the proprcty
Of the mpri PeuIeu larry, and holds
the act OF made the Penentiary OF aIls OF
The County NewYOt Tor The purposes Of the cOnne
meut OF prisoners sentenced BY Court OF oyer and
Iermner aud OF competent jurisdiction for
whose Imprisonment no special provision made by
statute. The commitment strictly conformed TO
the act Of 1914 No advantage arise the relatOr
nv any chance. IL was adudged that he should be
urisoned IA tue County jail. The reator had been
convicted OF misdcmeanOg properly punishable by m-
prsonment the penitenary. Gnd for that purpose IL
nd llMlullN deslgnhtel the iAiL Mhcl