National Republican., 1881-11-04

habeas corpus would he open to the accused II you
unlustly held TO ball, and suppose that Mr. Ihomas
H. James had, on this preliminary hearing, sworn
that he had examined the records IN his Office,
and that he had had conversations on the subject
OF The charge with divers persons, ana tha' they
had told him thus and so
or SUPPOSE THAT MR. r. HENRY WOODWARD
should come and swear to exactly the same thing,
would Your Honor commit Would you hoiu to
nal NO sir; II cannot be possible ,nat ay,,'S y9S
do SO, and on n habeas corpus proceeding before
Your Honor, no more proof than that were "a.
duced, you would not hesitate TO discharge the
accused. How much more then should you not
permit an information 10 be filed and warrant 10
issue on II when that cuts off the remedy py hapeRs
corpus; for when a party Is once indicted or
informed against his only relief Is by final
trial. Tested by the principles OF the common law
n connection with the provision OF the Constl'n-
ton have quoted, this information cannot be
filed. It'll not supported by the oath Of anybody
70 any fact whatever. Before leaving this branch
Of the case want to call Your honoTs avtenom m 20
In 2lst Illinois, page 81, Dyer vs.. Flint; In that
case 4 was held that an affidavit in an attachment
which sets forth indebtedness on Information ana
belief Is not sufficient, nor that the party Is about
TO depart on information and belief. Then there M
Is the case Of Archer VS.. Clahin' 81 ILLINOIS, 90
NOW CALL ATTENTION
TO the of Coleman, reported in 10 Blatchiord.
On the Sd day Of November, 1873, Stephen Man,
sher made oath before John |. Davenport, a united
States Commissioner to an affidavit, stating that
There Is TO be an election held III the city OF New
York on the 9th day of November 1873 at which Re
In Congress to be chosen;
has, in accordance with the laws OF tne
State OF New York. been registration OF voters ior
said election that said registration was on the Sth
10th, 25h and Goth days OF October, 1879 that as
deponent is informed and believes one Peter Cole
man did on one of the said days OF registration,
for the purpose OF registering himself as voter or
otherwise, unlawfuly use certain cerliil, i,
,bo Of o,S o NaRp % the him
be n citizen, knowing that such certificate had
| been unlawfully issued, or made; The man VINO
drew this affidavit not 30 prolific IN adJecuve5
aud adverbs as were the learned gentl emen who
drew the remarkable paper which your Honor is
now considering; but the aflant in this case had
| alleged that
THIS THING WAS USLAwFuLLY DONE,
and that he knew II was unlnwfully done. ask
Your Honot's attention here to the statute
under which this proceeding was had. by
reading II Your Honor will observe that this AIN
davlt, made by Mosher, was drawn ex-
pressly to 1T this statute, and that they put into
the affidavit all the ''unlawfullys and the know
ing" and all that Just to make IL conform 70
| the provisions of the statute. Coleman was ar
rested. Io took out writ OF habeas corpus
Now Will Your Honor please to , compare n are tha m
dnyts which these gentlemen present to YOU
Honor In this case7 In the Coleman case Moshel
sSSs csman RnSs i w nnaw and ST
Coleman used the certificate for an unlawful pur
pose.
| tifcate itself was unlawfully issued.
Mr.. Wison-Yes; he sworc that IL was unlaw
fuly issued, but still the court said 70 the connis
| sioner, or whoever was engaged in the case, III
| substance this. "Adjectives are not what Is re,
quircd. The law does not commit men and send
| them to the pcnitentiary OH ndyerbs. Oui
friends who drew this paper here are certainly tht
champion go as you please adverb ana adlectlve
| singers of the world. 1 never saw so many suct
parts of speech In one paper In my life. But II
this Coleman case the court says that that Kind o.
thing will not do: but that you must set out In you
| affidavit the evidence which shows the unlawful
ness of the act charged. The court says
"wE MUST HAVE THE FACTS
in the case-the evidence in the case-we won't nc
cept anything else. We cannot go upon NOR,
hearsay; we cannot allow this witness TO be thu
Judge TO the suficiency of the proof and, there
fore in that case, the court held that there was M
probable cause shown In that affidavit, just as w
contend there Is no probable cause set forth IL
these allldnvits.
At this point the court took q recess