The New York herald., 1875-03-25
7VEED'S LAST CHANCE.
The Argument in His Behalf BeiNre ihe
Court Of Appeals.
Ex-JUDGE cOMSToCNs SPEECH.
The labtas Corpus and Magma Charta Invoked
for the Peni!ertiary Statesman.
ALBANY, March "a, 1878.


relator. addressed the Court as iollows:--
1ay IL please the Court-in performing the very
responsible duty whicn now undertake. to assert
the innocence or TO confess the gullt OF William
crime OF winch he Is accused IN public discussion
aud probably IN tho popular appre hension. 1t Is
prosecution now under review, he has not been
indicted, arraisned, trled convicted or sentenced
WHICH ~nich IS spread over youme Of nearly
1000 pages, relates to only oil the
lower grades OF mlsdemeanor to be found
IN all criminal law as the neglect OF Official duty
or the bad performance OF thay duty. In all The
indictments there IS no suggestion or impuLation
Of any personal corruption connected with TINS
offence, or OF any seeking after personal advan-
taRe or gain. The great lnhumanty and the terri
bic injustice OF tho sentence or consecutive SEN
tences pronounced upon nina by the Trial Ccurb
cannot but be elt, ana deeply iet by every right
minded person. These accumulated penal
ties and punlshments amount IN their az
gregate TO more than twice the punish
aa bosn auv ne law Inc nnS Of wenS s9
million. | come to the discussion ol the case,
therefore. WIN profound conviction that ootn
justice and law nave been violated and my
tongue Will be palsled and my voice hushed for
ever before VIII refuse to nitlt up In sucn case.
The great proposition upon what cali The merits
OF this controversyis that the whole law OF pun
isnmens ISM en-, upon this Indictment: and upon
by a single sentence reaching the maxi
mum OF punishment and ali rne consecutive
ment and nue are outside OF the Indictment,
verdict ana law and therefore unauthorized
as ana yo rs h rs tae man on
But we are told by the counsel on the otner side
that no such question is TO be reached in tnis
case, because they say that even ii the accuinu-
lated sentences are without the authority OF the
law tney are, nevertheless, oniy Irregular and
avoldaole. ana win justify the detention OF the
prisoner for the rest of his life, unless IN some
other form ana mode ne can release himself; and
they tell u.s. further, tnat even il the act OF the
Court In pronouncing the sentences was without
jurisdiction and VOID the remedy by nabeas
corpus which in this state is so narrowed and SO
restricted, however 1t be elsewhere.
adequate Tor the prisoner.
TUE WHIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
They tell Us that this great writ which for so
many generations has been the guardian angel
keeping watch over the liberties OF the people.
cannot penetrate the recesseS OF the dungeon in
which citizen Is confined Dy the JUDGMENT or
sentence OF a court OF justice although that court
authority. To these preliminary questions shall
nrs5 address myself First. then, assuming thar
they ought TO be treated as nullites. To affirm
the contrary Is TO say that II the Judge OF crm.
nal court has jurisdiction to receive an indictment
aud to try the issue, and, having once got the
jurisdiction ne cannot aiterward mako any invalid
decision, or order or pronounce any Invalid judg-
ment. He may deny the right OF trial by jury.
bs as @ good as jury Of twelve. s'fH he may may
override the challenge. He may direct the
clerk TO enter a verdict when the jury refuse to
agree to 1t. He may himself try tine challenges
Jurymen end after the verdict. or perhaps without
any verdict at all, he may pronounce any sentence
he peases lie is oay to say that what ne is
doing Is according 10 law, ana there is the end to
II. HIS acts are valid on ths theory until reversed
by appeal or writ OF error. That Is, the plllory,
crime OF pctlt larceny lie may pronounce the
punishmens for the offence champerty. lie
may sentence TO death ior The crime OF grand lar
ceuy. He may imprlson Tor HE, or for twelve
years when the law prescrlbes, IN this case, the
punishment OF ore year only. NO authority, prop
crly understood, is cited lor these positions. We
nave Deen here told without authority Tor II,
tnat II the judge makes up the Jury
nevertheless awlul jury because the JGdge so de-
cides. We have been told tnat although the Judge
pronounced n IudgmenS for winch no law be
cited, yet it is valid judcmenl, because he must
have so decided in the very act. Tho PLAIN mean
Ing OF ali THIS is taat havlng once got POSSESSION
OF no jurisdiction Ill any stage or ut the
close OF it was possible against those oespouc
doctrines.
THE MAGMA CHARrA.
invoke the authority OF the Magma Charta,
when IN its 10 ty declaration tnat no man shall be
deprived oi lie, liberty or property except by the
Judgment OF his peers on the laws OF tae land,
mas been the foundation OF liberty Ior nearly a
ha5eas corpus, wnlcn, during the same peIiod OF
tune has been the attendant OF Magma
force ana authenticity TO the principles
therein cOnsecrated. Before proceeding TO the
citation and ANALYSIS OF few Of the cases bearing
upon these great questions | submit teW sen-
eral observations upon tue origin nature ana the
Use OF the hapeas corpus. TINS writ Is mot the
cr"aion OF our statute nor OF any statute 1t Is an
ancient English writ, The origin OF which is lost In
remote ages. The great Charter declares, IN the
words already quoted, that no person snail be i'm
prisoned except by the lawful Judgment OF his
peers or the law Of the land. This great
principle Is enthroned IN all our Aner-
can Institutions and in the exquisite decia-
ration that nOhouy shall ne deprived OF life
or property without due process OF law The hls-
tory OF tins writ informs us that 10 was used py
the judges o England. II not before, yet lmmedi-
ately after Magma Cnarta. Has The remedial pro-
Cnarta consecrated The great charter It-eil was
nothing Without tne means OF The practical asser-
tion o the PRINCIPLES which II ordained. fnere-
fore judges invented ana used the writ OF habeas
corpus. The celebrated act of Charles H..
commonly known rs the "hahcas corpus act"
aud make the writ more cfiicacious. Such also
was the leading purpose Of our statute. 1t reau-
lates. but GOES not originate the writ II seemed
~ writ OF absolute right every day In the year and
every hour IN the day. There Is no dungeon which
1T cannot penetrate. no unIawiuI 1mpris onmen5
Whlca IL cannot release.
\ LAWFUL IMPRISONMENT.
Thus the English race have Understood for sew
ment Is lawful ii under final Judgment oi inc court
or competent jurisdiction. 80 says our statute.
But IN this there IS nothing new. Such always
was the law. such was the common law Trat
IS the Judgment OF a court OF competent jursdic-
tlon and void judgment is no Judgment III any
court which ~ not competent To DO ything be-
yonu its jurisdiction. The proposition Is self
competency, even IN particular case and yet
that they can err, and sometimes 90 err, on jurls
dicnonal questions, and that such an error
is fatal III all MODES OF lnquiring INTO
it. The highest criminal court can
not lawfully pronounce sentence OF death
where the law prescribes Imprisonment or
fine. and II t does so pronounce who Will say that
its sentence is voidY The error here asserted
Is one OF remarkable simplicity although 1t IL
wonderfully msconceived and Incapable oil logical
thought There no judicial act and in the nature
OF the law there can pe none hicn Is not open to
collateral inquiry. To assert that o court can
render Judgment not open 10 such inquiry Is
asserting simply universal despotlsm residlns In
the person who possesses that supreme power.
The inquiry, therefore, salways open.
We can suppose an action pending In the
lowest court OF this State, which the
title to- a personal chattol bears the
validity OF the Judgment OF this Court Of Ap-
peals. such a case IS not inconcelyaDlc, although
unlikely To occur. III the decision OF the magistrate
should be against the Judgment OF this Court in
such case and the case should come mere Tor re-
view, wnat would be done with 1t? answer the
inquiry before this Court would be whether the
point had been properly decided in the
court below IL you 80 md the
Judgment OF the magistrate would be
afIirmeu, and you would hold your own judgment
to nave been void II you louna 1t so. II otherwise
you wouid reverse II, not because the MAGISTRATE
mad erred in deciding as he did, but because he
entertained tue question And so 10 Is III respect
TO ali legislative acts. inquiry Is always open.
The hunbcst cOurJ sitting at any OF the lOur cor.