The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-05-07
That Is What Albert Kingley's Law
yer Will Endeayor to
Show.
John Hample on Trial Charged
With Aiding In Illegal
Voting
Judge Saw yer Finishes His business In
the United States Court and
Leaves To-day. .

Albert Kingsley WAS convicted at Deer
Lodge for stealing q mare worth $50, in
september, 1889, and sentenced for five
years at hard labor in the state p~enite1k
tiary and to pay a fine of 500. His az
torney has appealed to the supreme court
and raises a nice question for that tribunal
to determine concerning informations filed
by prosecuting attorneys in criminal cases.
Some of the points made against it by
Kinesley's attorney are chat prosecution by
information is in d%erogation Of the com
mon law, and n departure from the general
policy of the law, and for that reason
statutes providing for il which are in oppo-
aition to long settled policy must DO strict
ly construed. The. rule for the. oonstruc-
ton of penal statutes is that they are to
reach no further than their words; no per-
son can be made subject to them by impli-
cation; and all doubts concerning their
Interpretation are to p%reponderate in favor
of the accused. The right of a party
charged with a crime to have his case
submitted to grand jury
for its action and determination
was as sacred under the principles of com
mon law as was the right OF trial by jury.
II u1lulHH III VI llAlCtIu6Ib III a JuNlCAhl
act, differing from filing an information,
which is merely a ministerial act. TIT lat
tor is but the Nero formulation of the plead
ings in a case, while the former is a quasi
judicial investigation that has been invio-
late as a legal right for centuries. The &C
cused was at the time the offense alleged
was committed a resident of the territory
of Montana and guaranteed all the rights
and projections declared in the constitution
of the United States. This was the funda-
mental law from which the rights of the
people of the territory were derived, and
which they retained as to all acts lone
while residents of tho territory. Nor could
a single right be taken away by the advent
of statehood, with it's new constitution and
laws made under it.
The following section of the constitution
of the United States is quoted: mo per
son shall be held to answer for a capital or
otherwise Infamous crime, unless on a pre-
sentiment or indictment of a grand Jury"
This constitutional and fundamenta right
is of the highest of legal rights guaranteed
to all. The declaration is a prohibition, to
preserve and protect the rights of individ-
uals, and to-day stands inviolate and in
force. 1t is a right that has existed under
the common law for seven centuries. The
accused was entitled to this United States
constitutional guaranty of presentment by
grand jury on Nov. l, 1889, the time of the
commission of the alleged offence. Having
the right at that time, it could not be taken
away. The constitution of the state by act
of congress, as we'll as by its own
terms, did not become operative I'm
til Nov. s, 1889. Article 3, section
eight provides for proceedings by informa-
ton. The act of the legislature providing
for proceedings by information was passed
March 9. 1891. This act in relation tic
prosecuted by indictments, when applied
to any offense commi94ed before it's adop-
tion, operates retrospectively, and is there
fore ex post facto and void as to that
offense. The attorney general has these
points under consideration and will file his
views of the case in a few days.