The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-26
CONVICTION CHANGES LEGAL PRESUMPTION

general procedure and operation it may be,
but in criminal jurisprudence there appear
occasional conditions in which it works with
a repulsion of common sense as obvious and
absurd as the hallu cinations Of lunatic The
case of the election swindlers in Chicago is
striking illustration Of this occasional NANTES
tation. There was no question of theirguilt. 1t
was proved incontestably and declared formally
arose as to the sufficiency of the forms under
which that guilt was ascertained. One judge
of the federal court thought than an investiga-
ton proceeding upon information" was legal
and complete. Another doubted whether a
crime of the character charged must not be in
veshgated under an indictment" The one
proceeded on the statement of one man ON oath,
the other would have proceeded on the same
statement assented to by several other men.
That was the difference, and all of it. In the
uncertainty as to the legality of the conviction
obtained by the process on information,
against the confident opinion of the other, the
penalty of the offense is arrested, the con-
victed and undoubted villains released on bail,
and the case stands still till the Supreme
Court of the United States decides whether
the proceeding on information" is sufficient
or not, though the guilt of the parties is not
questioned by either judge. Here
mere difference of form opens up delay in
which may easily occur such chances as will
let the convicted scoundrels escape. Wit
nesses may die leave the country or be cor
rupted, and guilt, so plain that no one doubts
it and a jury has formally declared it, escape
all punishment Ought such chance to be
given to undeniable guilt Where there is
doubt of the offense or the offenders the case
is changed. There it is reasonable o allow
the accused the benefit of doubt. If jury is
not satisfied it should not convict If point
of law is obscure or eeuivocal the accused
should have the benefit of the doubt If evil
dence is indirect and uncertain verdict
should not be built upon it. All
this is conceded But when guilt is
indisputable, ascertained by legal processes,
and declared by legal FORMS is not the pre-
sumption by right, by common sense, by the
obvious interests of good order and the safety
of community, shifted@ When 'prima
facie' case is made against prisoner the refu
tation of it falls upon him, even before con-
viction. Is not the presumption against him
to be maintained all the more forcibly when
the 1prima facie" case is made positive by
formal conviction Yea, verify. The rule of
law that gives prisoner the benefit Of doubts
changes fairly, and nationally, and eonsis
tently with the law itself, when doubts are
settled by conviction. The doubts thence
forth are to be held for the benefit of the
community clearly outraged, but not
shown in precisely formal manner
to have been outraged. Does any sane mans
judgment question the justice Of this rule?
Can any man, sane or insane, give a reason
why a convicted scoundrel should be allowed
a chance of escaping the proper punishment
of his offense, when his offensc is incontesta
bly, proved, because Of doubt as to the form
of investigation? We maintain that the pre-
sumption in favor of criminal ends with his
ceedings connected with his case the presu,np-
ton is with the community. And whenever
doubts arise they should be decided for the
community, and not for the scoundrel who
has wronged it. ITO this complexion it will
come at last" When a convicted villain is
trying to escape the penalty Of his crime by
arrest of Judgment, new trial OF appeal, the
doubts that arise will not be held points of
advantage to enable him to escape the pun
ishment that jury has fairly and formally
declared his desert It is enough, in this age
and land of sublimated humanitarianism, to
give criminal only before a court the adj
vantage of the doubts that arise while his
guilt is still under investigation. To give
LII tue Stine duNduldSc after HIS Cllllc las
been proved tbeyond s,.sonable doubt is
to deliberately wrong the community. Mack
in and Gallagher should have gone to the pen
itentiary, and awaited there the decision of
the national Supreme Court as to the COM
pleteness and formality of the proceedings by
which they were convicted
A WASHINGTON special says: