Workmen's advocate., 1888-12-01
4'rice T Gents

l tha defendants of obtaining a writ of l error uu the -TUuud of lhaf djscrimiua- 1 tpu alleged by your article. On Sept. ! go puhi-hrd m tIo Philadelphia Tugr- l hah t,rmau dajl}j n essay un the ] Chicago anarchists ease. in which 1 1 tried in show tu#t jlr writ of error 1 hardly would op allowed on the ground ni tvrNniyadtfe-, Wd s5lg-eStod tnat the i drtcuee >hauid test and contest the con : sululloNahIN uJ the Illinois statute law 1 It.rlI, arvu.dlH- lp which the anarchists | were sentenced IproyeI that the Amer 1 lean Cuumuu and sIHlutr laws, acrord- 1 to which t.u' secs->ury before the fact is to hr avH,t olth us principal. are liable to foster rruu" Wd rudam&rr mankind, l ruulNHlHurN to thr HgW ul the Cun,ti- tuition n' tHe lWtI States. ls dcHeatpd tu uo Preamble, tJ wit. 10 establish Juatlne, and lo#nurr domestic tranquil. lN. l submitted. in a uuru explicit way my argument tD Capt. i5lHck, the ! ytUtI vHu~I of 1hg ttiragO Anarchists. taNHn i}lark k answered me that my ar Guurnt had consideration, and hu hoped |0 rr"N y 3u} suggestions, hut finally saw Uat my argument was neglected hy counsel 1t may De argued, indeed, that 1 lhH question raised hy ne was not point rd uut in nor decided hy the lower ruurl and thal therefore my argument Woud be dimIe<ed bN the Supreme Court for want of Jurisdiction, the same | way as General huter's point was dis. missed, because ii ,vas nut recorded in tbc lower court. But l wish to call the attention of thr uriats of the country as to jIlr durtrmr of 'Wuivpr to the follow 1 ing passage of IIiiiard's Law of New IrlH# Whore u defendant suffers de- fault and fail, tO take advantage below | ot pului7 open to htm, without q satis- factory cause, he will be held to have waived them. That he relied upon previous decision ot the Supreme Court on certain point is sufficient cause This aims to show that my argument. though not pleaded in the lower court. Warr0nt.pd the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, for the American arcoasory7hip law never Was doubted as to its consttutiOnality, though Black stone himself made the following re- .narh. ur that subject matter; Perhaps II distinction were constantly to be made between the punishment of priuci- pals and accessories, the latter tO be treated with a little less severity than the former, IL mIBht prevent the perpe- tration of many crimes by increasing the difficulty in finding a person te execute a deed itself, as his danger would be greater than that of his accomyi lice by reason of the difference of his punish ment.' My argument, indeed, is based on another ground. 1 proved that the laws treating the accessory to the pun lshment of tue principal prevents the tempted person from withdrawing from the plot, or rather cOmpels him to consummatc the deed, and that there fore that law is unconstitutional.
 ADOLF HEPNER."
 A similar telegram, sent the day be- fore, on Saturday. November (, for the New York Her0td, did not succeed in getting admittance to the sacred columns of that Philadelphia, November II, 1887.
 For some particular reasons this pub- lication-made ready for print on Nov. II, 1S87, was delayed til now.
 ST. LOUIS, Nov. Ii. 1SSS
 Tue first Anaitersdly Of he
 ChicdgO ErecutiOn.