The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-20

his defense. Tennessee officials cannot
compel witnesses to attend here from
Other States, Itwopld be, therefore, ind:
possible to punish him under the laws OF
Tennessee until his guilt as murderer
was established in his own State. Will 1t
be contended that the same principle is
not involved in cases Of less import Will
1t be said that the crime of grand larceny,
ar even petit larceny, does not require the
same character OF proof?
Under the present practice man leav-
ing another State can be followed TO this,
arrested for bringing stolen property into
Tennessee and sent to the Tennessee peni-
tertiary. 1t is customary in order TO do
this, to send for witnesses to the other
State and they testify, OF course, that the
goods were stolen from that State. This
is nothing more or less than a trial in one
State for crime committed in another.
1t is violation Of the rights OF the indi-
vidual guaranteed him by the organic law
OF the nation. 1t is wiping out Of State
lines by judicial opinions. 1t is revolu-
tionary.
All men are to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty. No man, il would
seem, can be proven guilty OF having
brought stolen property into this State I'M
less, as a condition.precedent the stealing
can be established, and there is no way
that this can be excepting by trial in the
county where the CRIME originated and by
jury of his peers. This feature of the
case, however, has no particular bearing
upon the cases under consideration.
Legislators can say what shall be fell
ony, but they cannot give courts iurisdic-
/ tinn tan lpao aaI Hhaettaa nf tho
accused in violation OF the bill of rights;
nor can they predicate their statutes upon
matters outside OF their jurisdiction Of
which they know nothing and can know
nothing When IL was attempted TO en-
ofienses committed five miles from the
conld be punished in this State, the SUI
prcme Court in 1871 promptly declared
the provision unconstitutional, null and
void.
In the Matthews case, under considera.
ton, the Supreme Court decided that the
accused was guilty Of larceny; that the
act was continuous, and that while he
would have been guilty under the laws Of
! Mississippi, he is also guilty under the
| laws OF Tennessee. To the outside bar
/ DdIlulls lills httlnh biTdilBt. ~ uu uCCuscu
can only be punished or tried in the county
where the oflense is committed, then Ten
nessee courts have no jurisdiction. The
crime was surely committed in Alissis-
sippi. The mere possession Of the goods
in Tennessee is simple trespass. The
ielonious intent existed, and was part OF
the original taking, and both made and
located the crime. Unless the crime in
Mississippi is investigated; unless the ac'
cused is tried by fair aud impartial Jury,
and with every other constitutional right
to which he is entitled accorded him. un.
unless he is duly and regularly convicted,
and proper record made thereof, how can
the Supreme Crurt OF Tennessee solemnly
decide that an act is a continuous crime
when they have no means Of knowing
whether or not the crime has ever begunl
ale is guilty OF larceny IN Tennessee, u
say the Supreme Judges, because he wa,
guilty Of larceny in Mississippi" Ono,
more II can be asked: "llow do the Su
prcmo Court Judges know that he wal
guilty OF larceny in Mississippi" Every
man is presumed guilty until his guilt i
proven, and that guilt cannot be proven IL
a foreign State; neither can II be assumed
no matter how probable II may appear.
There is a chance for some young law
yer TO win his spurs in making test o
! tho natter