The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-06
INFAMOUS CRIMES.

Every criminal is entlJleQ TO q 1dlr trial.
A substantial compliance with the forms of
law in the trial and conviction of every Grim
inal is essential. not so much because of the
rights of the guilty as of the rights of the in
nocent Therefore, when complaint is made
of the ''technicalities' of the law standing in
the way of the punishment of criminals, care
should be taken to discriminate between what
is a technically" and what is a substantial
right When supreme court releases con-
victed criminal because of the wrong placing
of a punctuation point in the Indictment or
because the Indictment does not specifically
aver that gill is less quantity
than quart, the court trifes with
Justice and stretches the technicality Of
the law to the advantage of law-breakers.
But when the fifth amendment to the Consti-
tuition Of the United States provides that no
one shall be convicted of capital or otherwise
infamous crime except upon presentment or
indictment by grand jury, and man is con-.
victed and sentenced under proceeding by
information, it is not 'technicality' to have
an appellate court pass upon the question
whether the crime of which he has been
adjudged guilty is or is not an Infamous"
crime within the meaning of the law and the
amendment.
Mackin and Gallagher, the Chicago election
return forgers, were convicted in proceeding
by information, and the question now to come
before Judges Harlan and Gresham is whether
their crime was an infamous one, which
could only be prosecuted by presentment or
indictment Of grand jury. If their crime is
legally Infamous" then there can be no
murmur at the setting aside of their sentence,
however great must be the regret at the mis-
carriage Of justice. 1t is held by the attor-
neys for the defendants that the crime Of
which they stand convicted is an Infamous
one, while the attorneys for the government
assert the contrary Almost as soon as the
Chicago case had been appealed from Judge
Blodgett, the United States Supreme Court, in
a case from Michigan, decided that man con-
victed Of uttering forged paper, and sentenced
to three years at hard labor, was convicted of
an ''infamous crime" and he was released be-
cause his trial had been by information. This
opinion, the attorneys for Mackin and Gala
CHER say, settles the question in favor of their
clients, and they anticipate speedy release Of
the distinguished Democrats when the appeal
is heard by Justices Harlan and Gresham on
the 18th instant.
The language Of the constitutional amend
ment implies that there are crimes and Gin
famous crimes. II all crimes punishable
with imprisonment in the penitent;ary are to
be regarded as Infamous then il is plain
that none at all could be proceeded against by
information, which the amendment forbids;
but it is clear that there are crimes
not Infamous" and which can be prosecuted
under information. Therefore the question
is, what constitutes an 'infamous" crime and
how is it to be distinguished from crimes
The opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States has just been published, and
it assumes to define an Infamous crime, in
so far as may be necessary for the Michigan
case in which it was asked to interfere. The
argument is made, at some length, that the
character of the crime is determined by the
nature and measure of the punishment; and
that if the punishment which may DO affixed