National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-11-10

Of Maryland, want TO say word or two about
that the common law of England has been invoked
for the purpose OF depressing citizens IL probably
Is not the last; but Il Your Honor does what
think Your Honor will do this will be ono step to-
ward mnkinR these appeals odious TO the people.
and, therefore, less oton resorted TO. The common
law Of England ms Il prevailed at the time OF these
nformotiuns, was the common law asst
ArPERTAINED TO THE PROFILE
at that time The common law Of England, in
England now, has no more Similitudo 10 the COM
Tan lazy 81 EGSHnd an g! sS oW has S the
civilization prevailing there in the time Of Henry
VII. Hence, when we Invoke the common law
when we speak Of tho common law as II Is here
and when we, residents of the District OF Column
ba and citizens ofthe United States are TO be tried
by the judicial department Of the Government IN
this District we are to be tried not by the common
law Of England, but by the
oo,iMoS LAW OF TuE STATE OF MARYLAND
as It existed on the 9th day Of February 1901,
common law. said that this was notthe first time
that the grave OF barbarous ages nnd
bloody deeds had been ransackcd for weapons TO
q The English common law The people OF IN;
District have been competed 10 STAND
By Sg.. and see of SS SSS eSs G fSs
ever were known. We have seen Pat Wood
dragged from his home and put into the commsn
TO send him 20 Jail than | had. We have seen
Ranisdcll aud White. and Painter and Joe Stewart
all shut mp n DUNGEONS WITHOUT even Ine appehhp,
citizen. prominent resident mud business man Of
our city, dragged OF In the night time.
CARRIED TO THE COMMON JAIL,
and detained there for the space Of six and forty
days upon the mere warrant Of citizen of Indiana
who had no more right TO Issue such warrant
than had. II WINS my pleasure u was my. pro,
that my learned friend (Mr Brews,er, snd yeser.
day about the position oflawyers upon the subject
to- pSpcaT beofe hat rh tTb%"s Tie Supreme
Court OF ilfe United States and invite It's attention
TO these outrageous nfractions Of the Constitution.
and although the Supreme Court bud, sixty years
| ago, given quasi consent TO this kind OF proceed
ing still, when the matter was brought to the Mt
!enion Of he Judges OF that court they so,d tneFe
aud that there was no power In the body
which Ind assumed TO commit citizen to the
common Jail, TO deprive him OF his liberty for any
such cause as was alleged there against him. II is
| well to remember these instances IN which the
common law OF England" has been relied npon, 70
We were told from the beginning Of that case to
the end Of 1t that those proceedings were author
| lied by the common parliamentary law Of Eng
! land. The gentlemen who made those argu-
mcnts--I beg pardon OF Judge Shelabarger, be-
cause think he argued one Of those GASES
| Mr. Shellabarger-NOt in that court.
Mr.. Toten--well, thc gentlemen who did argue
| on that side urged that the common law of England
authorizes those proceedingS-thnt we were gov
erncd by the common parliamentary law OF Eng
land-And that the liberty of every citizen Of this
Republic could be taken away from him by virtue
of q rule which grew up IN the dark nges and
or this people. ] had the honor of disputing that
assertion before the supreme Court. and that au'
| gust tribunal decided that the common parliament
tary law of England was not Of force in the United
Stntcs that we were governed by the Constitution
Of The United states, and that the Liberties OF the
citizen could be taken away from him only by due
process of law and In conformity with the pro-
visions OF
THAT NOBLE INSTRUMENT.
Your Honor will remember the statute TO which
am now about to usk your attcntion-the act oil
Congress Of February y, 1901 which completed tho
Won have not already The citation, you will find il
In volume of the Statutes at Large. That statute
contains provision that the laws then in force IL
Maryland should be in force and continue In force
ms TO the people of this District until they should
have been repealed by an act OF Congress; thai
that statute has been tran, lerrcd aud rewritten IL
The Revised Statutes relating to the District o
| Columbia; and Your Honor twill find in section o.
of the Revised Statutes this provision:
The laws of the State Of Maryland not ncpnsisten
with this title the same existed on the 9Th day
February. fsOi except as since modified or repeale!
lied repealed continue in force within this District
Now, Your Honor will observe that II is i'm
portant that we should ascertain at the outset VIVA
The laws OF Maryland were which the people o
this District received as an inheritance through
this act of February 81, 1901 And in the frs
place, wish to call Your Honors attention to sew
eerai statutes which have a bearing upon th
question. The first is the act Of lib chap. &C. sec
T. That net is entitled AN act for the speed!
trial Of criminals, ascertnining their punishment
in the county courts &C., and only Rllude to 1
to show that the punishment inflicted for petit!
larceny petty thieylng, and the iisei was
SO many stripes las the court before whom sucl
matter Is tried shall adjudge, not exceeding forty
The goods so thieyed or stolen" / read that pro
! vision merely to call Your Honors attention to
THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED
. upon the crime of petty thieving The fourth sec
ton ofthe act speaks:of the party presented" nm
. says: Upon such presonment such proceedin
shall be had" There is no allusion here to an In
IN n sSESh G sG wSr
"prcseItment" by the grand jury. and so until "
Q come down to section Z, which provides for tn
punishment of persons who steal unmarked hog
use, which seems TO have been habit In Mary
land in the e4rly days Of that province In thi
o l have just read from Ilale's Pleas Of the Grown
II provides that these penalties. fines and forfeit
th rSs province s &c by action Of de S@ PAINT Dc
r or Information" &C.. You find the same WORD
t taken from the English laws which are recited b
: Lord Hale and transferred to Maryland and pt
n into the act Of 17lj. II may be proper to remin
II Your Honor at this point that the first statutes
: | Maryland of which we have any record WEI
made In 1888, and the first statute OF which "
have amy knowledge personally, the first whic
!, has come down TO u.s. was made In lG92. That
!, the date Of the first act reported by Mr. Kitty
u FLAWS OF MARYLAND"
E refer now TO the statute Of 1777, chapter O. f
q the same purpose substantially. That Is Il statu
If which refers TO the manner of collecting fine
penalties, forfcitures. IL has not much TO do WI
/. This case, except that Your Honor WIN find d
IS understanding the case of Rnggold VS., The lie,
!. Court, which will bring 70 Your Honors after
q ton in a few moments. The next statute is tn
70 of 1890 chapter so. entitled, AN act TO limit Il
. Jurisdiction Of the General Court in Grimm
n cases., It goes on TO provide that The powers
~ the Judges OF the General Court shnl mot be exc
IS csed amer the passage OF this act over
n Any oilenses, crimes or misdemeanors whatsoey,
eSiS and but all oenses crimes ii
~ Justices of the County Court wherein such person mi
u be presented or indicted.
% The second section goes ON to speak Of the pra
ticc which shall prevail IN the prosecution OF SUI
:, oiienses and the words presented or indicted
~ run all through the statute and there is no rcie
. ence anywhere in 1t TO such thing as an infOrm
i. ton This act was passed IN tyr III i3 anoth
~ there was remaining in Maryland anything assim
y lated to such practice as this BY iniormatio
this statute of 1872 wiped IL out chapter 20 OF q
act of 1872, provides that
Is From and after the passage Of this act all perso
10 ths sas, Which acts direct the mode Of prosecnil
10 10 be By action Of debt Bill paini or iniormation
pf cted 6y bill Of Indictment or action of debt and
by bill plant, or lnformailonj anything IN any OF
u Now there is no record that hirye been able
~ find since the passage Of the act of 1872 that a
~ such thing as afeTiminq! INFORMATION mas be
~ looked with great diligence, Your Honor, to I'll
L. whether such thing was ever known In Mar
~ land since that time, and have been able to III
nr lust one reported case--lhe case Of The Lord Pr
,n prietor vs. Farthng, in Harris and McHenry, v
no l. p g. All that the report Of that case contains
u celebrated lawyer in Maryland In his day a
no generation, and at that time Attorney General,
mr. erasing the assignment OF patent of tract
an land All that Is contained In the report is I
NJ notes of Mr.. Delany upon his argument Nobo
seems TO have appeared against him, and tho
port concludes with this note:
or Itdoes not appear how this case terminated Clear
y, therefore, II Mr. Denny did not curry his case II "
Az not the fault OF opposing counsel, for none appear
a' against him.
70. But we have some further Maryland author
as upon TINS subject lnerc Is u reference ~ hlit
eS rpuOrts TO case of an Information III 1908 lC