Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-04-30
NEW LEASE OF LIFE.


continued from FTSC rugs.
Dnrstin with the paper they were bringing
him should have changed the nature of his
thoughts. But nothing of the kind hap
pened. Mr.. Durstin made no explanations.
He simply read the paper and asked
Kemmler to sign it. The doomed man took
the paper that meant the postponement of
his doom as if it were really some paper he
had to sign to express his willingness to die,
or as if it were a confession of his sins.
His listless manner justified the assump-
tion that possibly he thought this was a
formality always observed before an execu-
ton. He seemed as if he would not be sur
prised if, after signing it, he should be or
dered to kneel for tine last time and then to
get up and go to the death chamber. Not
once did he ask a question. He put his
name on the document with studious pleas
ure, proud OF being able to write, and then
gazed in an absent way at the notary while
he affixed his signature.
A TALK WITH SHERMAN.
A special telegram from Syracuse, N. Y,
SAYS: Roger NJ. Sherman, the lawyer, whose
efforts succeeded in saving Kemmler's life,
for the present at least, LETT Auburn as soon
as possible after he became certain that the
writ of habeas corpus would serve its in
tended purpose. He came directly here and
was promptly interviewed. He declined
positively to say who his employers were.
but he emphatically denied that he had
been retained by Kemmler, the Westing-
house or any other electric lighting COM
pany. Mr.. Sherman was asked to give
The DISPATCH some of the points on
which he hopes TO prove the unconstltu-
tionality of the law He said
The Court of Appeals has passed on ques-
tlon which may seem at first blush, similar to
this. but it says in its opinion that the only
question it decides is the constitutionallty of
this law under the State constitution. 1t holds
that the question whether this law imposes
cruel and unusual punishment is a legislative
and not judicial question. and that the courts
are not at liberty to pass upon the questions OF
fact or upon the evidence, which was taken to
a voluminous extent on that subject This
writ of habeas corpus is not intended to raise
any question under the State constitution as
the Federal courts have no Jurisdiction to en-
tertain such questions.
THE OBJECT OF IT.
Its object is to determine whether the law vio-
lates the eighth and fourteenth amendments of
the Federal Constitution. The eighth and four
teenth amendments contain the same pro-
visions forbidding cruel and unusual punish
ments for crime as those contained in the State
and the fourteenth amendment
provides that no State shall pass or enforce
any law abridging the privileges and 1mmuni-
ties OF citizens of the United States, and it also
provides that no person shall be deprived Of
life, liberty or property without due process of
law. The provisions of the Federal Constitu-
ton and the acts of Congress passed to
enforce them, empower the Circuit Court
of the United States to inquire whether
State law is in violation of these privileges as
original and independent question, and the
Supreme Court of the United States has in
many decisions held that such questions cam
n n n
State law. but the Federal courts must inquire
whether in fact in its operation the State law
had that effect. SO that while the Court of Ap-
peals holds that the law must appear on its
face unconstitutional, the Federal courts hold
that they are not concluded by any form or
but are empowered and required to
90 back of the statute and determine the
question independent of the Legislature for
themselves.
rhe result In this case of this difference be-
tween the State and Federal principle is this:
y notwithstanding, :he Court of Appeals has
whether the evidence taken proved that this
punishment was cruel, the Federal courts are
pound to determine that question. 1t has not
Tet been judicially decided that killing by
electricity is or is not in fact cruel. The Court
If Appeals says that the Legislature has
lecided that question and that the courts of
he State are bound by that decision.
SOME MINOR POINTS.
1t is my expectation that the Federal courts
will consider such evidence as may be adduced
n that point. and if they differ from the Legis-
ature and determine that it Is cruel and un- |
sual punishment, they will declare the law to |
70 unconstitutional, and discharge Kemmler
nder this writ. There are several other ques
ions of minor importance, any one of them /
efficient, in my judgment, to invalidate this |
lw. For instance, that the newspapers shall |
ublish no report of the killing under penal
except that it took place accord
q tn law that ha |
lay take place in violation of every statutory |
nd human law. No one can certainly say that
truthful report of the occurrence would not
lake known such horrible features as to raise
popular outcry which would result in the i'm
lediate repeal. but if such should be the case
uch truthful report would expose the publish
r and reporter to legal prosecution.
One of the best conceivable safeguards for
be permanent infiiction of cruel punishment is
D shroud the execution in mystery and to send
truthful reporter of the outrage TO the peni-
entiary. This law, therefore. takes away from
criminal an important safeguard against ex-
essive punishment. 1t is not only an unlawful
estriction of the freedom of speech and of the
ress, but an actual encroachment on the
g is entitled in this manner to complain. 1t
lay be that law for electrical killing could be
nacted consistently with the Constitution if
omitted these
OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES,
ut as this law stands in the existing uncertain
nowledge of the effect of powerful electric
urrents, the least that can be claimed Is that
be people, who are the ultimate tribunal, must
ecde whether this mode of electrical killing
hall stand. Therefore the claim that we make
that the public should be fully informed of
be effect of such a current Intentionally di-
ected to the killing of human being.
In the opinion OF Mr.. Sherman the pris-
ner Kemmler, and all the other murder
rs who have been sentenced to die by the
ew law will have to be given their liberty
4 case the law is decided to be unconstitu-
onal. DIR. A. P. Southwick, who has
cen fighting in favor of the electric killing
wv for 15 years. does not agree with Mr..
herman in this matter. He says that he
as made thorough study of this aspect of
ne case and he is certain that if anything
revents the operation Of this new law that
lie old law will resume its force.