, 1881-12-24
JUDGE CRAIG AND THE "oR1MNAL LAW
vrpgH


A CORRESPONDENT stated III tho columns of
THE TRIBUNE Il few tlaysago that tho modes of
criminal procedure Iii illinois woro entirely
satisfactory to thu successful criminal law-
ycrs." Il pnrtinl proof of this ASSERTION Is
furnished IN tho communications OF two OF
the ablcss Of theln-Messr5. John Lyle King
and Emery 4. Storrs--prtntcd LII another
column tl,fs morning. These eminent crIm-
inal lawyers lave rushed to tho defense Of
Judgo Crnlg agulnst what they dcc,n MI tim
founded nspclsion." They believu ho IL m
admirable Judge. They know Ile Just suits
them. They would be very sorry to seq lli,n
defeated for reflection. Nothing could please
tholn more than to llnye the Supreme Court
made lip Of soven Judges like Him, Every
successful criminal lnwyern II, tic State
will probably DO Of their why Of thinking.
While ruE TKBivE does not wish To In
tcrferc i'll tho controversy between those cnl-
lnent criminal lawyers md Justice" nor
would 1t lndorse MI tlnt Justice +" said,
yet 1t feels constrained to sy In behalf Ut tho
people that 1t makes no practical difference
whether Judge Craig listened farorably to
motion for Il rellearing in tho intormIna-
bio Frlctberg case, or whether lie Eranted
stay Of proceedings 10 permit n motion for
IL rcl.earlng tn bo entered and argued. What
lIo did d0-nnd this Is beyond dtsputc-was
to pronounce tho opinion Ut tic Supreme
Conrt in tic case Of Frledbcrg, and to affirm
tha decision Of the court bnlow In the follow
!nE clear and conclusive Language:
!. CRIMINAL LAw-Ieecefpttty stolen tJo0as for
bath-Qu the trla1 0f nno for receiving stolen
gno.is g f1r M III his own gain, knowna TINT they wsro
ilr th1t flp nssfsted lii tito burglary and wont to
the detcndanta plnco of business ti.oinu pawr-
ment with tto icfeMtta.ii, a1,d tl'o Other .ImS6-
1eo;lnnahso evdencc sLowra tint tho tofensiIll,t
know SUCH witness to he q professional tltof,
and taat tue goods. being ino silks. were tuke,i
to lnfgNlaHts place Mt MI unusual hour Of tho
~ i:9ht " susploinns % ol'a;aotcrs. ono ct whom ho
IT.. g, % " tnlS t1 4a p ~ stspie"s n
Wa9ou, md that IN discovery or tho unonrttng
Of tho goods By policeman no left. and locked
clt aud atsu uttor contradictory statements in
reKnrd to tho snntter. ind had shortly before
0 I, snt sgo to ss y few @ q s b. Sx
,1'toratetl ths itstiao'iV u the aseom'Iics wGoso
character was Infamous.
Judge Craig, having delivered this most
emphatic opinion. had tic discretion to grant
stRy OF proceedings to permit n motion for
a rohearlnE 10 be argued. That Is not de-
nlpd. II lIo had hot such discretion 1lc
could not have given the stay. Tho point is,
that 1t woul.l llayc been Io atuso of ilscre-
tion for tho Judge to refuse 10 graft the stay
10 this branded fclon. 1laying held Nov. II
tint the evidence "vcrU clcartU sustained n
conviction" ho would haye been excused for
not tlolsllng Nov. 50 TINT there was "pro5n-
bic ground for rctlearlne." Ills liberty
was rs wiAe OIL one stde rs Oh tho other. Ile
chose to exerciso 1t for the benefit OF tho
convicted criminal md against tho people.
Aftur oil Is said and done, tho great fact re-
mains that Frletlberg, covered all over witl,
proven crime, Inns not yet bcen sent to tho
pelltent!ary, notwithstanding the strenuous
Efforts Of tic State's-Attorney, though Ills
ofense was committed more than Ntrccu hears
ago, and the evidence against him was as
clear Us noonIay,