National Republican., 1881-11-05
! think shall show That 0m ju'iaod in say.

SowolD said he must decide II ON the principles oi
which conviction for conspiracy had been held to
make q man infnmons unless it was consplraGGy 70
ton Of Justice and that he would nQt
pHyona INC existing decisions M he sssnc ess ha
was offered as witness, Ind been CONVICTED oi = S9n
of uplSn1ded reports. HH The Indictment on which s
iordshp was convicted cherged IN SugsenngG aoniiy t
conspired with certain other poTssons therein
named TO circulate false Intelligence for
rise in qpps tSe public funds and thereby to desd
Kings SUBJECTS The fourth count charged nun ,, M,t
70 be sent 70 Sir Thomas Foley, the commanler, Of
Ills Malestys ships the Downs station, VIII, Win
him 70 communcate Tie false matters contained z
ne letter TO the Lords OF the Admiralty ana tnrousn
the design being toaIcct the public funds. IL was
letter, as recollect II, alleging the entire ue.
struction of the French fleet There weI9 otner Ne,
counts charging the same fraud, but varying the
description MS TO the modes Of executing H. he was
convicted and sentenced to pay n line OF tl,OOO 70
the king. to stand in the pillory, ana 70 suusr n
three mOnthB' imprisonment ana ne ulu 80.
The Kings advocate urged that SAID Cocnrane
was rendered infamous aud disqnaihed py ms
Washington. The Kings advocate urged that Bull
ler says barrntry IL an Infamous crime, anu suOse
qucntly mentions conspiracy as crime OF
blacker die than barrairy lie also cited Coke:
Sir Wllllum Scott In deciding the case, SAID
In tracing the history Of this subject It clearly ny.
pears that fer long time the incompetency was
meit than irom the nature OF the Offense To some
modes ofpunlshment lnflnly appears TO have been
with II the lnconnrtcncy Of the person who liad
suffered II. Accordingly, Lord Coke Laws down
without reserve, that IL person hath stood In
tumbril, been branded, hath lost lila ears ,nv
matter Z should seem from WHAT he Is incompo
inlnly upon ahesltaiing consideration In the case OF
DAVIS vs. Carter Mod Rep( lI2lt Is Reported @ bo
witness; but lr be he convicted for libel and has
"a
ssScS + ,Sken sx vs. SSrSse sbed sTnS,a rom
@ TIC punsh'aeni, % but ppfi no further back than 10
the Judgment for Holt lays i down there lirsl lhn
the disability flows from the Infamous Judgment and
not from the nature Of the crimes for Il man be con
ycted fora cheat, onl ndlulgcd 70 sani ~ lne ply,
Judged to stand in the pillory. Tnc law did not re-
main long on this footig, which certainly could not
should arise not from the nature Of the crime nor nor
from the mode of the punishment, but from the
pinishmen,. Sun. however. the more ancient
opinion appears TO have fingered In the courts for
Rex vs.. Ford that II 4. not the nature Of the punish
nent but The nature OF the crime ana the o)v.cI9n
luei no appear vt that time to have been finally and
y threo hsss nGG at e WILSON, S the @
lI55 IL then proceeds TO peak ~ s,rong and ,a
doct nc which lad orig nay possession Of the courts
TINT II IL absurd aud ridiculous 10 say thi IL y lt
crime which renders persons incapable to give testi
mony In court Of Justice. It now appears to he finally
ii2J thai the infimy sr!ses not from the punishment
from the Judgment. but irom the nature of tht
attached the disability besides those higher olfense
which visited with the heaviest punishmenis that
| man cIn iniilct man? II is laid down very gen
orally that all crimes comprehended under the crime
aIsi subject !hs guilty parties M to tn's % dsa9Sy ~ !
| Evidence. by Leach by Peake and by Phillips, ant
Fho SfGrt rs sSp NJ az therere @ appSVsu Is to ascertain What
the eren & & Gi Ths m term h glf hr sD,SI Sorr2wS i SS
Les C6rneiia dc jdisis, and the numerous comnenta
Tes upon hat law haze IN Yah rr 70 eos e
books. It seems 10 haye been particularly polnteI
NE SensS SO % r ioEeGy Sscc aansone Conserve svo
We're rather aY the technical description Of tha
Inclndlns cins ~ ofIenscs. But i appears to hav
been extended TO other otfenses. though meet Will
comprencnded under It, aud them opiy IL was, per
haps, more convenient to leave such matter 70 ih
| known wisdom and integrity Of the Tribunals actin
upon the pnriicuiMt occasion AS; rs y occHrre
definition OF the word Jdisi: for. 1 presume
Il would be as ilconvenient 10 sa
@ slight and uni@portant i IN its Injurious effects. wou
subject the conSicted party 10 lns dl3aDllity, ns
under the description Of Gisi that ought to subject
such an incapacity. My limited aequaintanco wy
in furnishing me either with a definition {
the crime. or a plennry enumeration oithe Speci.
stone laws 1t down thus; Aconviclion Of any oIens
comprchended under the demonstration OF crime
SOC SO comprehended and The general term, as hav
observed, leads TO no distinct Inclusive and expusiy
als, sash as forgery, perjury and The lIIt
n y juGsmsnn what degree % reqarsd Sq OF
y ogss 70 tnn fn snS SeSSes nss S exac I'm
yaIsi. such rs perjury, conspiracy, DC. Mr.. phllll
M no sS & fsS ssh ise "a braS1 pah,sSmeI
Here is large hqt"s under these e, eee,t, m ALL A.
| determined
Some text authorities certainly mention cOnSpira
eVsTy sns tie anSS sense @ Of Tie wor
hcngh Lord Coke mnc " he RPIisgs TeIerrCf TO- Ts
. conspiracy, standing here, has been argue
with considerable show of authority,
I that that purpose Ed D. aud does al that time SPpt
arising out OF the mhnners OF the times, when men
wealth collected numbers together for The purpose
|. course OF legal guilt along with barratry (whl
stands in the catalogue with IN the one being
n n law. In another pa,ispse Lord Coke qualities
J conspiracy by annexins 70 Il that II must be CO
: formation than possess TO be able to distlngu
a. what Is conspiracy At NE he suit Of The Crown,
orthe Crown means In the ordinary sense OF crit
raj eSmnecd sS NTH lSe yano9s 90 HG s
ss TO which y then led but which y admitted by
ut obsolete by long ,lsusc In some of the latest ca
e. wlSr, Il Is alluded 70 dd s expressly S si iald i 90
10 villainous Judgment could be given, but where
ns conspiracy was to take away n mans HE.
i to inquire because, by the later authorities il SEQ
~ ~ o he admitted that u II ouly for conspiracy uni
of onostion S naaE to the proper inefprcsnn OF d
10 genus Orcrimc Such sepluS to be the state of 4
80 Ing crimes Immediately affecting the purity OF
ne publlc Justice Perjury, 'nhOrnatlon, suppression
~ person falsely with the cri ne Of pcrIury-Rl III
Ia. "a On ~ l.tAy
o He refused to 90 further, and held that Lord Co
~ rane, convicted of such II conspiracy us ] III
" 70 stated was not guilty Of an infamous crime
e, is stated, mny remark, by Chief Justice Abbott
u, Crnwther VS.. lIopwood, Stnrkie, 2l. that Sir
ru liam Scott came TO his conclusion n
nc much GomsIdcralEn and, u ,b mistake i,,SS
~ the point before lie pronounced his judgme
~ The ihct Is IN that case, Your Honor, u passag
Ps Coke was relied upon, and the passage In Cox
W sively referred to in the textbook authori
g., s., upon that subject where he says this. (Co.
hs CHI
,s Joined to the Jury nOra witnesses, II the with
us was infamous, for example II he ne attaintel
IL false verdict, or of II conspiracy at the suite of
g OF SSctSa Of y Of eSnS H5 pr 81
'l- ment lost his cares stood upon the plory or
eh bril- or peene agIatl,ts branded or the IKE, VII
~ BiiHOr6s cidp1c stnt inoJorcs tUdHidc.
IN REGARD TO THE WORD CONSPIRACY"
there In that passage Lord Coke Is really the
40 gin of all that has been said upon that sub
ny NY and yet, Coke himself, MS viii show Your lie
inyy elsewhere, defines conspiracy lie means
Wy shows that II IL conspiracy solely relating TO
on administration Of justice. That might indeed
ny inferred from the eollocation Of the langl
,as, there false verdict Or Of conspiracy Mt the
'u' Of the king" &C. There are two cases TO viii
i,nn, ought To refer, ono Is Crowther vs. Hopwoo
lnt Starkie, 81, where the question was raised u
cn whether some one who had been convicted
rec ~ s not nrl r"ntnrdon admiiicI him 10 tes
'ay saying the question could ailerward be raiseI
III, a motion aiter Judgment The judgment
! however In fnvor of the party who was objec
loh TO the testimony aud therefore the question
@ aos no further.
ami MY FRIEND CITED YESTERDAY
nd a case from I.each's Crown I.aw-(which is al
to be found under another title In Lench's CT
on Casesl-lhere clted as prlddles case and In Lea