, 1876-07-03
Why Jacob Has No Claim to the
Consideration Of tho
Court.
Mr. Eesing's Explanation Of His Position
in the Whisky Frauds.
On Dit that Rehm Is About to Leave
.for Colorado.
THE LAW OF REHM'S CASE.
CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL BY 4

before Judge Blodgctt during the very rcmarkn
bic spectacle which was presented in the Dis
! trict Court the other day.
On that occasioil the counsel for Rellm in
sisted that it is the established law that an &C
co1uplicc used US ii witness by the Government
after testifying truthfully, is entitled to abso
lutte Immunity from punishment, as q matter O
RIGHT The Government counsel admit this X
be tho Law, but insist that, having ADMITTED
Rchm to testify upon an agreement with
his counsel to the effect that the Gov
cruracnt was not to be nrccludcd from in
| slsting upon punishment within certain limits
that such agreement binds the Court in passing
sentence. Whilst Rchm's counsel insist thai
the anrccmcnt is not binding on Rehm,-to,
whose benefit it Wa5 aadc,-but that he is en-
titled, notwithstanding the agreement, to as
absolute immunity Us the Court can give him
after baying pleaded guilty, viz: nominal i'm
prisonlnent ana the lowest fine, 81 900. The
Government counsel also very strangely admit
tl1ut, at the time the agreement WAS made, i
was understood that Rehm's counsel, notWitl
standing tue agreement, should have the right
to Insist upon nominal sentence.
It also seems to hafc been conceded by all the
counsel TINT all that would be necessary to coll-
clule tie Court on the question as to whether
Rchtn lnd testified Sfully and fairly" was fo1
his counsel to assert it, and the counsel for the
Government to a11nit it, which was done With
all due f0ru;ailty.
Now, we undertake to say that tho positions
assumed by counsel On ont side and CONCEDED
by those on the othcrarc not the law, and never
have bceu.
On the first proposition, that an accused per
sou used Us l Witness by the Government is en-
titled to absolute immunity us q matter\ \of
right if be tcstitics fully and fairly, the folloG
ing cases expressly deny such right, and they
were decided bg Courts OF at least equal
learning and authority lis those cited by Rehms
counsel:
Commonwealth VS.. Dabney, l Robinson Va.)
Commonwealth rs. Brown, 103 Mnsd., 2222
Commonwealth Us. Denehy, ib., 4A
Cummings vs.. State, Kansas, as..5.
Byrd VS. Cou,monwca 2 Vi. Cas-, 4B.
Tie above cases state the law to be that where
an accomplice is chilled by the Government and
tcstitirs truthfuIly and 1ully against his part
ncrs in crime, having first been admitted to
testify Jy urIer Of The Court, Oh q proper case
bling 1,lade for ths admission Of sttch person as
,oituess, tllat is circumstance emitting him to
the lcuicnt consideration Of the Courtin passing
sentence.
But the criminal statutes of the United States,
under which Rchin testified aud WAS indicted,
provide that any person may bc subpHnaeu as q
witness. aud compelled to testify, and that his
evidence cannot be used against him in u criln1-
nal prosccution to enforce al1f fine Or penalty
against such witness. 1nasn,uch us all the
tic doctrine Of immunity, above stated,
that u n, witness having. abandoned
the security which the LAM gives him, OF not be-
ing obliged to criu,inate Mlnsclf, and by means
thereof society has beeu enabled to detect and
punish crime, such witness IS considered as en-
titled to the favorable consideration Of the
Court; therefore, when the witness, by IN ex-
press statute, Gun he compelled to testify, and
tlis testimony cannot oe M usgu H.; AGAINST , aun, ~
so,Ae ratio,, cexsat ct ipsa r,' tile rule OF I'M
nlunty itself should Iall.
Waiying for the present, however, the question
as to whether the doctrine OF immunity LAS any
application to Rclln's case whatever, II 1t A:s,
and i Rela1n Is entitled to its benefit in the full
est sense, the1. it is clearly the law, hat before
a,.g Foundation coa( be L1 satch application,
it uxis for the Court to determine, application
made to it Iorc tie il,tess tels sscor, scater It
tcu1td d}uto hin. 10 place hiiase 1" that atfa,se
touards The Government or not that on such ap-
plication the Court would require proof on
these points:
/. Whether the evidence Of the witness Was
necessary to convict his associates IN crime.
2. Whether such evidence would probably re-
suit in such conviction.
crime the proposed witness bore compared to
those against whom it is proposed hc shall give
evidence.
above citcd, fully sustain tue propositions;
People VS.. Whipplc, Cowcn N. ~, III.
People VS.. Bruzzo, q Cal, 81.
King Us. Rudd (per Lord Manst1cld), Cowper,
331.
In the case Of the People rs. Whipple, the
Court say, p. I'll, $50 long IS, by the policy Of
against their fellows, so long must o
discretion, in regard to admitting them Ge vested
somewhere or other il the Government. It
could not, consistently With the nature Of the
,ower or the course and character OF Judicial |
be committed to the Ch'cf Executive
&c i;trtsted to tic puczic prosecutor or any ouicr IL
erior officer Of Justice, because, strictly speak
ng, It Is the exercise oJ high judtcia! disereton
z'l The re1so'ts for rests'tg It IL the Cot Tdter
ha,. III tie committing magistrate, or cac's the ,sd-
ic prosecutor, is, that the admission 9f the party as
to mercy upon condition Of hts
'lahi,u {. full and fair disclosure oj all the cir
ef the cri1tc.''
Yet the Government counsel in Rch1n'6 case
rould have the Court believe that they
'aye tie power not only to determine whom
hey will admit as q witness, and to whom
hey will give the benefit Of this claim
o the Courts mercy, but also
hat they will determine whether the witness
las testified fully md fairly, and that they will
nd Ill the Court has to do IN the premises is
imply to carry out their trade, made, Us they
dniit, behind the Courts back, and without its
noWledge Or approval!
No such monstrous and impudent attempt on
be part Of Government counsel to assume the
Of the Judiciary, we venture to as
art, has ever been asserted before, either IN
MS country Or England, and from the very
rave situation in which the counsel lind them
lives in this case, VIC venture that at least they
ill never essay another like performance.
The truth is, Rehm and his counsel have made
bargain with certain parties assuming to rep
.sent the Government about a matter with
hich those parties had nothing whatever to do,
I'D the consequence is, that, SO far as that bar
ain is concerned, Judge Blodgctt has no concern
hatcyer. Ret,n is d mere volunteer witness
n the Government, just as he 6worc he was on
le Mum trial, when these very government
,unscl sat by and heard him. aud tried to make
lc jury believe he told the truth, and to procure
,nviction upon his testimony.
Therefore Rchm has no more claim to the con-
dcration Of the Court than did the prisoner In
lc following case:
In The People rs. jean Baptiste Bruzzo, q
a1ifornia, page 81, the Court say:
The record shows case Of joint indictment;
int trial; request or call by the Prosecuting |
ttorney for Of the defendants, for the purpose
examining him against the other two; ne taxes I
e stand voluntarily IN answer to the. CALI he IN
tcs and without objection takes the OATH in its
ost comprehensive form, and, under 1nstrucuons
hch he has previously solicited, and to which ne
kes no exception when given. eliminates MS as-
ciates and himself, and On these anteceoenLs tne
uhse1 of the witness, In pursuance 81 O nouce |
eyiousIY given. moves the Court not merely 10 |