Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-11-05

III you DO not nne the man you might as well not
have arrested him: ILaughter.l Somebody has
got to pay the costs; there is no use OF having
case if you do not fine the man. tLaughterl.
This Is the safer way"
WHEN IN DOUBT TAKE THE TRICK.
saw in theater one time little play. One of
the characters In the play never did anything in
the play without quoting some authority. He
always had his authority on hand. recollect one
scene where he was in company with several
others on the stage, and the others having one by
one gone away, he looked on the stage and saw a
him was what to do with it. 'Now," said he,
''maybe one OF those gentlemen lost this money;
maybe not II should say found it, it might be
the means OF some of those gentlemen telling
lie about having lost it," [Laughter.l Said this
character, sthere is doubt in my mind as to what
ought to do with it, and when there is doubt.
after putting the money in his pocket) you should
aSe te ra tek ILsnughter That is really the
any doubt as to your jurisdiction in this matter,
the safer was is to say that you have:
GOING INTO THE SUBLIME ONCE MORE,
Mr.. 1ngersoll said that principle could not be
made Infamous by the means that were resorted
to by the Star Chamber Court Said he: "The cross.
the rack, the gallows never succeeded in making
principle Infamous; but John Brown shed a glory
even upon the gallows; and it has been through
the history Of this world. He then proceeded to
give his ideas OF
WHAT AN INFAMOUS CRIME IS.
After eulogiZing the grand jury system, he said
other places, should the grand and time-honored
institution, the grand jury, be maintained, and be
allowed to stand between the humble citizen and
the man who can hold office. Said he, my client is
arrested upon ignorance. He explained that
Rsd sworS tn na' the 'nf upoa Whs
Others told him. In closing he said: "When my
client is held up to public Scorn and Indignation,
should be resolved in his favor. But instead OF
that, not satisfied with the harm already done not
satisfied with violating the custom OF 160 years,
not sa atlsfed when they were afraid to present this
case to the grand juTy-Atraid! Afraid!-I use the
word knowing what it means When they We're
afraid to present it TO the grand Jury, they came
| to this court having waited themselves for the
expiration OF the Statute of limitations nearly,
having then, by an afidavt Illegal and void, ac-
comp1shed the arrest and maligning OF this man,
they now say II you have any doubt, resolve that
doubt against the defendant Col. Bliss said, the
safer way II you have any doubt as TO your uriS-
diction is to proceed. and repeat this simply be-
cause Col Bliss is now present l say II the court
has any doubt as to whether this is or is not in
famous crime, stop! If the court has any doubt as
to whether these affdavitS amount to probable
| cause stop! No court can go on to final Judgment
property, without being as clear as daylight as to
his jurisdiction and power. The absolute knowl-
edge that you have jurisdiction makes you clear
in your high Office; and so Say-not only |. but
the law, says it, ii you have the slightest doubt,
stop!
took his seat, saying: That is all have to say in
this case"
Here a recess was taken.
The Afternoon Session.
"THE YOUNG GIANT OF ST. LOUIS BAR"
1t was on the program in the afternoon that jeff
Chandler, the ''young giant of the ST. Louis BAR ~
who has been engaged to defend Gen. Brady, should
speak This was to be Mr.. Chambers first intro
duction to the Washington courts. He had sat a
patient, SILENT apparently unconeerned listener for
two days, and some curiosity was expressed to hear
him. During the afternoon Chief Justice Cartier
sat on the bench with Judge Cox. Mr.. Chandler,
when the court assembled, arose and began his
argument in very modest manner, speaking
clearly, but not loudly though as he proceeded he
warmed up to his subject, and his voice OCCASION
ally made the chamber ring. He wished, he said,
to call attention to two three principles which,
he thought controlled the case completely. The
case stood now where it was left with the discre-
tiOn of the court to dispose of it. II their inter-
probation OF the law was correct there was
NOTHING TO SEND TO THE GRAND JURY
the acts alleged did not constitute any crime under
the statutes. The type OF Jurisprudence which
this court administered was different in many re-
spects from the type which preceded the common
law. In the common law the crime did not have
to be clearly defined. To show the distinction be-
tween common and statutory law respecting
crimes, he read from "Wheaton's Criminal Laws
The origin OF the common law was in the diScre-
ton OF the administrator of it, who defined at his
judgment what was and what was not crimi-
nal II that principle was not resident
statutory jurisdiction which the court was admin
istering, then it could not be invoked to aid the
uncertainties of the statute II the acts could not
be constructed into an offence condemned by this
statute then the court would not of course, weary
itself with the matter. Referring to Mr.. Bliss re-
marks he said he had left this question Of the law
unanswered.
THE GENTLEMEN SOUGHT RELIEF FROM THE EMBAR-
RASSMENT
caused by the limitations OF the statute by at
tempting the tmposSibility OF importing into the
statute law the principle OF common law. This stat
The question was what source this court would
consult SO as to relieve itself of this uncertainty
Would the court go on an excursion to common
law and find the definition of fraud there? The
court could not define crime 1t was purely a
legislative power to define a crime. The court
could not in determining what this crime was,
what its limits were exercise any discretion at all.
The court could not say that certain acts which
were within the mischief Of a statute that made
statVte. Mr.. Chandler quoted extensively to sus-
tain the principle which he had advanced-to
show that court could not give an equitable or
liberal construction to penal statute. 1t must
be conceded, Mr.. Chandler said, that
THE COURT MUST LOOK TO THE STATUTE
to see what individual acts are forbidden. The
policy OF the United States law was not to define or
to punish crimes in group. The court must look to
the statute, therefore, for its definition 1t could
not be said because the court had duplex juriS-
dictiOn-cOmmOn law and federal-that that could
effect the matter The statutory jurisdiction OF
the court could not be affected. A statute meant
the same throughout the entire Jurisdiction of the
United States, and there could be crime against
the United States; that was not defined In the
statutes.
LITTLE SPAT BETWEEN COUNSEL.
Mr.. Chandler after speaking of the fallacy OF at
tempting to punish man for intent, referring to
the disrepute in the eyes of the law into which the
crime of conspiracy had fallen, declared that s'if
Gen. Brady's acts were authorized by law, he
could not be tried for bad faith alone"
Mr.. Chandler finished speaking about 2:1O pm.
The court inquired If the prosecution desired to
proceed.
Mr. Cook said that he had received a request
from the Solicitor General to come to his office,
and he would not like to begin his argument until
Monday.
The court then adjourned.
PIONEER IN GAS.-Jeremfah Crutchett, OF
Philadelphia, the man who first lighted the Capt.
tol and White House with gas, was in the city yes
terday, and called at the Executive Mansion. He
is about so years OF age He got speclal congress
sional permission to light the Capitol and permiS-
sion from President Monroe to illuminate The
White House with gas The only oDlect OF nus Visit
here was to pay his respects to the PRESIDENT whom
he found to be out of the city.
THE PRESIDENT remained in the Fifth Avenue
hotel, New York. yesterday, land was called upon by
number OF distinguished gentlemen, among them
ha,ncr ax c,overnor Edwin d. Morgan, Gen. Ham,