National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-11-09

required which would be necessary convict 9s per
would require thai probable cause be shown. Proba.
Bile cnuse ls case made out by proof furnishing gooi
| mitted by the person charged. When such probable
appearns that 90 such ceims has been eomraited OF
that the suspicion entertained ofthe prsoners Is wholly
whatc could be more distinct and pertinentf "To
warrant commitment that proof would not be
! required which would be necessary to convict a
| person ON a trial In chief. but only" probable
cause.
MAY suaoBsr TO YOUR HONOR
| nmere passing reference to the textbooks of our
| Juvenile days, TO the teachings Of our primary
| logic IN the schoolsY In that tho distinction be-
tween the possible the probable. and the certain Is
buiel Of truth First the pos possible second, the
probabe third the absolute. When the
law, when the Constitution itself requires that no
il goes beyond the possible. Il stops short Of the
certain and the absolute, and Itrestsupon theproba
BILE II that be so, then this lnfOrmaton supported
BY these nfIldays, IS amply sufficient 70 Justify
tho warrant OF arrest which was issued. There
was reference made by one 81 ic nc learned GEM
| with an air of triumph with the emotion OF n Sir
Oracle, TO the case Of the United states VS. swart-
out, which engaged the attention OF the supreme
Court ln Its earlier days, and he had the Intellect
,al audsclty TO declare IN the presence o. Your
maintained chat probable cause required some
eerta II aud absolute proof while the pages o. the
book from which he read declare the fact that the
| Judges OF the supreme Court were
DIVIDED UroS THE QUESTION
before them, and that Marshall entertained the
view which he substantially announced In the
| Burrs trial. vol. Phila. Ed, p. IL
In an application OF this kind certainly should not
require Ire that proof which would be nscsssry 20 con.
| That Is the uiteranoe OF Marshall,
| The Chief Justice delivered the following opin.
iHn " the presence OF n numerous audience, April
Nor should I even require that which should alb
solnley convince @ my own mind Of ,he guilt OF The
INA. probable oa1se be shown; and undersiand
ing good reason TO believe that the crime has been
4 committed by the person charged With having com.
was quoted nom Judge Bsesione % When that learned ned
and accurate gommentstor saws /" If upon an IN.
been committed, % Tint the suspicion entertained %
s% @ os Mhp 10 S m sSSh Sse Sp
| must be committed to prison or give ball"
There arc the uttennces of one who long
| adorned with rare lustre aud unusual learning the
| supreme Bench Of the United States. These ut
| terances were made In case which elected the
attention Of the Nation IN It's earlier days, and
which convulsed her In all her parts. Then he
proceeds to amplify these views, and IN the pro-
rrS. nj the case admitted letter. TO which he re-
fers in these terms
II is, however. urged that the declaration OF swart-
out may he connected wi the letter and against
cannot crlniln another YET incline TO think that
upon mere inquiry into probable cause, the declara
may be used against Colonel Burr.
And then bo admits not copy sworn to, not
l
one who heard the letter reqd. The same doctrine
may be found In "a Howdrd Bishops Criminal
Proceedings, 7ls, and elsewhere. If this be the
true doctrine Of the law, why this assailment o (
the ahidayis to this informatlonf In Bishop 1t is
said:
In English practice the Information Is not verified
by the inforIhlns oiicers oath, though where t Is
not filed or oeieo the application for Il by private
Serssy by Statutes In our states the IN ornaton must
eso on o aS Snd S. ana
might enlarge, by trospassing on Your Honor's
time, with tho citation Of corresponding authori-
ties against all this There are two authorities
presented; one is the charge OF Justice Field to
the grand jury. In that case he admits In the out
set, in express terms, the propriciy of nling In
formations. He declares that Ia his view the evil
dcnce TO justify the finding OF information should
hc positive and conclusive before n grand jury
guilt Of the accused. But how can that be2 A
hearing before the grand jury Is er neccssiaie rel
partial; 1t Is erpdre The question actually Of the
QUILT or INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED
can only be fully considered when the case passes
from the grand jury room to this temple of Justice.
and when all the evidence is presented critically
and carefully to the petit jury. There is ono other
case that has been cited-a rule adopted In the
Northern District Of Georgia. Justice Bradley says
am informed by his honor the district Judge, that
great Inconvenience Is caused In this district by the
rest of persons charged with ofienses against the reve-
nue. laws against whom sufficient evidence be
ndcIme % or before tie traverse jSy " 70 jnsy
CONVICTION; whereby much useless expense : caused
people Is unnecessarily interferred with
That was the evil to which the rule was directed.
rants arc issued upon the affidavit or some oicer
- who sears that upon Information he has
charged has committed The ofcnse
That was all-upon the unofficial, unsustainSd,
reckless statements of mere individuals IN the
Mr. Wilson-He says noi,,cers," think.
Mr.. Cook (Rending)-" 0Ge cause of this evil
seems to be the fact that warrants are issued upon
the aidavits OF some officer who, upon The relation
OF others whose names are not disclosed swears