Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-05-29

clSlOn OF the New Ork Court of AD-
| peals.
The court reviews the history of the
/ enactment of the law, beginning with
| the statement contained in the annual
! message of the Governor of New York.
| January IS, 1885. The section of the
| Constitution of New York relating to
''cruel and unusual punishments'' is
| also quoted This provision had it's
| origin in the act of Parliament of 1888,
''declaring the rights and liberties of
| the subject and settling the succession
| of the crown" This declaration of
| rights, says the court, had reference
to acts of the executive and judicial de-
| partmcnts of the government of En-
| gland: but the language in question as
| used in the Constitution of the State of
| New York was intended particularly to
| operate upon the Legisla of the
| State, to whose c~ltrol the punishment
| of crime was almost wholly confined.
| So that if the punishment prescribed
for an offenSe against the laws of the
State were manifestly cruel and I'M
usual, as burning at the stake, cruel
fXion, breaking on the wheel. disem-
boweling or hanging in chains, it would
/
such penalties to be within the consti-
tutional inhibition. And we think this
equally true OF the Eighth amendment
in its application to Congress.
PunishmentS are cruel because they
involve torture or a lingering death;
but the punishment Of death is not
cruel within the meaning of that word
as used in the Constitution. 1t implies
there some thing inhuman and barbar
Gus, some thing more than the mere
causing of dissolution. The courts of
| New York hold that the mode adopted
IN this instance might be said to be UNI
usual because it was new, but that it
could not be assumed to be cruel in the
light of that common knowledge
which has stamped certain punishment
as SUCH that it was for the Legislature
to say IN what manner sentence of
death should be executed: that this act
was passed in the effort to devise more
humane method of reaching the result;
that the courts were bound to presume
that the Legislature was possessed of
the facts upon which it took action and
by the evidence taken under the statute
shat presumption could not be over
thrown. They indeed went further
and expressed the opinion that upon
evidence, the Legislature had attained
by the act the object it had in view in
its passage
The decision of the State courts sus-
tanning the validity of the act under
the State Constitution is not re-examin-
able here nor was tn at decision against
any title, right, privilege or immunity
1,-+
toner under the Constitution of the
United States.
Creating it as involving an adjudica
ton that the statute was not repugnant
to the Federal Constitution, that con-
clusion was 50 plainly right that we
should not be Justified in allowing the
writ upon the ground that error might
have supervencd therein.
The Fourteenth amendment did not
radically change the whole theory Of
the relations of the State and Federal
governments TO each other and of both
governments to the people. The same
person may be at the same time a citi
zcns of the United States and citizen
of Il State. Protection to life, liberty
and property rests with the States. and
the amendment furnishes an additional
guarantee against any cncroachment by
the States upon those fundamental
RICH which belong to every citizen as
a member of society: but which rights
the State governments were created to
establish and secure. The privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United
States as distinguished from the privi-
leges and immuniticS of the citizens of
the States, indeed, are protected by it,
but those are privileges and immunities
arising out Of the nature and essential
character of the National Government,
and they do not embrace the privileges
and immunities of the, citizens of the,
State.
''As due process of law in the Fifth
amendment referred TO that law of the
land which derives its authority from
the Legislative powers conferred upon
Congress by the Constitution of the
United States, exercised within the
limits therein prescribed, and inter
preted according to the principles of
the Common law, so in the Fourteenth
amendment the same words refer to :
that law of the land in each State
which derives its authority from the in
herent and reserved powers of the State,
exertcd within the limits of those fun
damcntal principles of liberty and JUS
tice which lie at the base of all our
civil and political Institutions I'm
dou btedlv the amendment forbids any
arbi trarv deprivation of life, liberty o"
property. and secures equal protection
to all under like circumstances in tlse
endowment of their rights: and in the
administratio of criminal justice re-
uuires that no different or higher pun |
ishment shall be imposed upon one thas |
such as is prescribed for all for like of |
lenses, but it was not designed to inter |
fere with the power Of the STATE to pro- |
tect the lives liberties and property Of |
its citizens, and to promote their health, |
peace, morals, education and good or
der.
1.-The enactment of this statute was, in |
itself, within the legitimate sphere of |
the Legislative power of the State, and |
in the observance of those general rules |
prescribed by our system of iurispru- |
denca: and the Legislature of the State |
of New York determined that it did not |
inf1ict cruel and unusual punishment, |
and its courts have sustained that de- |
termination. We can not perceive that |
the State has thereby abridged the |
privileges or immunities of the petit /