The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-05-03
EnR HEMnrLHR olah
Ys che Law or New TorN val,s,

To THE EDITOR OF The SUN-Str: A RreaN
deal OF unnecessary comment IL made upon
the effort to test In the courts Of the United
States the constitutional validity OF the Law
enacted In this State changing the mode Of
executing criminals from death BY hanging to
death by electricity. II is certainly matter Of
very little consequence who has Instituted the
proceedings in behalf Of Kemmler In the Fed.
eral court, or what the motive OF the person or
persons who assume the expense Of It may be.
tits, however, OF great deal OF consequence TO
have 1t determined whether the recent law IL
constitutional, provided IL can be made to ap-
pear that the Federal court has jurisdiction 10
determine It. The Court OF Appeals was the
proper court to determine whether this law vfo-
lates the Constitution OF the state. Tho Federal
court can determine whether It violates the
Constitution Of the United States, but In order
to ground tho Jurisdiction OF the Federal court
the application for the writ Of habeas corpus
must be brought within the scope Of the Federal
judicial power. In general. the prohibitions
and restraints laid by the Federal Conatitu-
tlon on the legislative powers apply to the
powers OF Congress, and not to the powers OF
the State Legislatures. Still. thore may bo
cases whore the prohibitions OF the Federal
Constitution can be avalled Of In reference to
law enacted by State. I do not know
enough OF the ground on which the movink
counsel expects to be able to establish the
lnrisdiction TO have an opinion on the subieeS
which seems TO imply that the sole QUESTION
IL whether execution by electricity is cruel"
one writer says that the law was enacted
sion. that death BY ELECTRICITY 70 less cruel
e more q less cruel to the sufferer. death b.
By instant aneous decapitation. or than death
Se f iS sE the hsn h ao Gsln dSn.
shall not be required. nor excessive fines i'm.
kicted So that to come Within G this Sfosib
tion punishment must 30 both cruel and un.
To- Ro 81 saSq:9 eoh
bsng mSSa arn was put to death
long been the mode by which death could %
Rmendment the Fedors co 6sh g WsS
Sah hanSng was the custom Which he'd
amendment is that. although q punishmenj
may may be cruel ono II 1t is not unusual 1t IL moi
Death BY electricity. whether moro or loss
cruel, was certainly unusual at the time this Law
was enacted. It Is q very recent Discovery
surely and suddenly. BY ARTIFICIAL means, 10 10
condemned person. Inc law was 1mprOVtQonps
~ passed. Tho principal inquiry was into itn
comparative cruelty. Very little attention up.
pears to have been given &c the fact that It wac
an unusual method of punishment. Perhaps
II will be asked whether State Legislature or
whether Congress is prevented from reBortinI
to new methods OF punishment but must al
waye be confined to hanging. The answer ID.
that some force must be given to the term uns
usual, and although this term may .hevo
proved methods furnished by the proRre!9. Of
SCIENCE. nothing but q change Of the constitu.
tional provision can relieve tho difficulty.
the term unusual"
One does not like to read In public journal
Of tho popular contempt for judicial reason.
Ing, and the popular fatigue with the delay
Ia the execution OF Justice upon Kemmler.S
There must be judicial reasoning in RoVerna
ment Of laws; and popular impatienee for the
execution OF criminal however bad he may
be. must await the result OF any proeeedino
which is to determine whether he can be right.
|ully put to death in q certain manner. It may
be very unfortunate that one possible result
will be to render II uncertain whether the State
now has q valid law for executing ofimipaio
his is the fault OF Legislature which enacted
, law without confederation OF the requisites
of valid law. Popular Impotence for the
EXECUTION OF one or dozen criminals II Of
40 importance compared with the necessity
or observing constitutional restraintR
NAY i. GEORGE TICKNoB OUn9Ias