National Republican., 1881-11-05

not come with any OF the dennions of felony un-
ss9od Sa ~ dhs s Si e conc 9nUpon Felony il
ofense which occasions total forfeiture OF eltner
which capital or other punishment mny be sugsr-
added according to the degree Of guilt (see $40 |
phens Comm, 6l)
call Your Honor's attention in that connection |
to the case of the United States VS. Shepard, |
whore they say that felonies nt the common Jaw |
Mt the time OF the adoption of the Constitution con-
sisted only Of crimes which were capitally pun
shed
The question then is whether conspIrlns to defraud
Looking first at the texl.buoks we nd that as gen
oral thing they say, treason an1 felony And every
tliIshop ON Grimes 90 Gilbert on Evidence, 25O)
That seems to conRne II to that class OF cases;
aud IL we except forgery oil Of the text writers IN
their enumeration refer ONLY TO crimes whlch Ill
rcCtly concern the administration OF public JUS
ticc. In other words they say that no crime Is
6S unless Il Il GiTeeiiy concerns the administrntion
of public Justice; and that leads Greeneaf lEvi.
dence, 3I3l to say that from these decisions y
may be deducod that the criincn ftisi Of the civil
law not only involves the charge q ialschood,
but also is one which may injuriously affect the
administration Of Justice by the Introduction OF
My friend on the other side yesterday cited the
case OF commonwealth vs. shaver walls " Setg.
might SPY here that they cited II as slslninlmii
among other things, the point 10 which shall
have to refer In few moments that In that case IL
was held that n punishment which incapacitgtes
Ms n Juror or "A witness renders him Infamous. Let
us see whether that IL correct statement OF the
case. In this case n sheriff had been CONVICTED OF
brthlng voter He was ineligible as sheriff II re
had committed an Infamous crime. The opinion ~
this case was delivered by Judge Kennedy, and
with due Difference might perhaps, commend
his views to the clients oh the other side Judge
Kennedy says:
For although an officer may, In popular sense be
said TO have rendered by the general
tenor his immoral conduct, without having ren,
| dcred himself liable TO n criminal prosecution mud
punshment at law YET IL y very eea, ,ha, that ,he INC
word Infamous should be applied to any officer 80
gs TO cause him 70 be removed rom oIice, however yer
been guilty ofsome oiTcnse that Is made phnithaDe
SSS Se o not tue TO- bs '0Ts osoSed VI ~ from
| Office without previous conviction, which can ony
made punIsha6ie by law lie may therefore become
iVdm0us In the general estimation OF the world by
dictionary 10 the word "infamouJ," without having
at law for his m,conduct. Indeed he may be so no
uer Sp n%rh SnI Imrsy % yTH gSss Sv Si ha s esd @
or any other iidctabc ohensc, In sholt there
| be guilty beside that OF lying which may De
oSquity, for Which he VS cannot be indicted or pun.
ished law. and yet they are sufficient to render
gent and yirtuons portion Of ths comimunily They
are so numerous u would be difficult TO enunera,e @
might probably he some diversity Of opnon whether
they ought to be regarded rs attaching hUdmy TO the
person. hut since, according to the express terms of
the provision In he COnstltuion II u only on c9hpc-
Of some bltmou. crime. therefore, seem as II the
makers of the Constitution intended that the law In
| the crime was Infamous not. II this had
not been intended,n II Is reasonable to conclude that
they meant by the term Infamous" but not having
intended to use Il In lis legal accepaon, which WIS
settled and known AMI therefore rendered al OK,
crime" are probably legal phrase, aud are there
fore to be taken In their legal sense unless from tue
which cannot even he pretended to bo the case here
but Tie contrary would seem 70 be most clearly IN.
q this phrase. Mr., Wtb,,cr,, who, in ~
the ,iEncycopcdia TO the word. "ini,my,
pSc disgrace which eonp nG .. and Sy WhS
he iS rendered Incapable Of being ioitess or {aro
planning lhs same term, i IS laid down iha. hVam,
extends TO forgery, perjury, gross cheats %c. ald
Gaestonably been clearly settled tHat the conviction
Of a person OF an bDdmous crime renders him incom
Of a crime, considered not Infamous at common law
has never been held, unless by statute, sntllcien en-
l. b asS' sS; Pi% Gom l'0P Dig 00nf i testimony s ace
hpSSyn hpGsys fs nn s PS fES Ey y Bshe
Barrett (,y; and Moo, i3D; $. G. "A, Eng Cag,. Law
@ ydnes Ies eoHea %se a
felony, and every species Of the crfacii Jdsi-scl
Tycrc STd ad SSSr os Of S Ike Gsss
ton, which involve the charge Of gdischood and aat
Co coh Ru2is Biz Tr Tx Testm ef CO. t f ph Il ~
%, u. p, Russell on Crimes 50e 5ll sobrbery take
an inrd0oua oense: and for that reason renders I'll
u.s. for instance, for Offering amy undue reward by
to any person whatsoever, whose ordinary prolessio
tics 4, order 10 influence lis Behavior IN oiee and d
cline him 70 act contrary 10 the known rules Of hont
V and honesty.
! Mr. Ingcrsoll-Does that cite any cases?
q Mr.. Bliss-We expect all the authorities fro
J Mr.. Ingersol-I simply asked you for the n,
= thorles There is no occasion for any smartnc
. Mr.. Bliss-Yes, several authorities are given:
Hawk. p. G. cap. 67, sec. .: Just, 1i5; Bl. Cor
J 130; l Russell on Crimes, 1856.
: Though in C1dnceYs case (Fortescue's Rep, 20S
: | where after great deliberation, n conviction
d brbng witness to absent himself and not 81,
evidence, was held to be an Infamous oiIenso
3 seven of the Judges and for that reason rendert
y the party incapable of giving evidence that gre
Il aud distinguished judge, Lord Holt, then Chic
n Justice of the Kings Bench, doubted the proprie
e of the decision. The ground Of the decision
n C2dnccys case was that tho purpose Of Il
e bribery was to obst1Id and perr7t he a
% mini'trgtton q, public Justice by preyen
y ing the truth IRON being made know
% The same ground was adopted IN late case of Bus
,es ell VS.. Barrett Try & Moo. i3D s. G. 81 t. c. La
10 is3. In this latter case the objection to the vi
pr ness was, that he had been convicted OF n co
r. Spiracy TO bribe person. summoned as u witnt
ID ION an information against the revenue lawS) 4
n. n. to appear before the justice Of the pen
y, who were TO investigate the matter and
H. H. eide on It; and held by the court, accOrdi
i. to the principles OF Clanccys case, that he "
fCnltrtu lUCOnpVAtnl Wy lnt COHNlCtlOH Anf
es is perfectly clear, from what the court say in Il
=. latter case. ms also In the case of Clancy, tha
or was not because the party had been convicted
no bribery or a conspiracy to brbe that
~ was rendered infamous, and therefore inco
G. petcnt to give evidence, hut becal
6Sos S had lint %as isnds% to Ss se %
I'M means of the bribery. which was that Oi obs'lci
SO and perpoting ne Gdmi4issrdiion Of public jpst
M hut corrupt and illegal practices III giving
III wards or making promises In order 10 procl
i votes in the elections of members to serve In n
lament, although, in moro extended sen
e; mon law, (licx w. PITT, , Burr 1885, per IL
cd Mnnsfeld) have never been held To render pcrst
C. convicted thereof infamous or incapable of givi
ne evidence or serving aS jurors. Indeed i think
's- may say II has never occurred to any to INT
as the objection as founded upon the principles
us very powerful, If no conclusive evidence
as show that such corrupt aud illegal pr,
y. ticcs were never considered igEim
lls England ns also In some of the United Stat
lg rendering persons convicted OF briberyRt occtl'
OF Crimes. 1885, and note A Phin. edit. 1896. 4
nc passage of these statutes also furnished strong
,r- cases did not work amy disqualification to h
on office or give eyidenuei otherwise the passage
~ them would have been unnecessary"
I W. ITHISK, THEREFORE, l AM JUSTIFIED
nm In SAYING that so far Hs that case is cited
/, il showing that q conviction Of bribery or
MI ofcnsc OF that nature where II does not diret
RS, concern the administration Oh justice NJ conn
ct law, ala not Ichuer Tue pnlly clther lncompe'
mt us witness or Juror and so far as that case
To cited here yesterday, certainly as bearing
,id those points, 1t was inadvertently cited
:" thew referred to two cases WI
~. lay down the same doctrine;
~ the Judges 20 on, with all the {,
net that italics can give, to dissent from that and
rIs that nothing OF that nature renders Infamous
Ihe less II concerns the administration Of justice
ut have upon my brief named various crimes wi
nn- hnvn hepn held not To be Infamous, L do
u know that desire to call attention TO any OF u
~ eases ut the present moment in particular. ex,
Si. To suggest lhht pelJuIY Pe.yuly,
lTy suppression OF testimony ~ priplng Wiles