Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-27
thing in circulating = timetable which
states a. fact that Norfolk Is twelve feet
above tide and Petersburg but eleven.
Miller VS.. The Commonwealth.

Mlller vs. Ine COMMONWEALTH
In our article OF few days lago
touching the decision Of the Supreme
Court OF Appeals Of Virginia in she
case of Miller 10. The Commonwealth.
we quoted the provisions of both
tho Federal ara State Constitutions
on tho subject Of jury trials. and argued
that the provisions in the Federal Consti-
tuition were not intended to apply TO such
cases. whilst the provision in the state.
Constitution did apply TO them.
As was stated in our columns several
days ago, Attorne5. General X. TArLoR
Scorf has petltioned the Supreme Court OF
Appeals of Virginia for rehearing in the
case OF Miller o.. The Commonwealth We
return thanks TO him for copy OF bis De
tition. IL explains briefly but clearly. not
TO say convincingly, the grounds upon
which the petition is based. First, he IN
PRODUCES the argument ab inconcenicntR.
But he gives little space to this argument.
He merely says that the decision will in
pose grievous burdens upon the taxpayers
in the heavy increase of criminal expenses.
Next the Attorney General argues that
sections 4i06, 4iO7. and 4i0s OF the Code of
Virginis deprives MARY MILLER OF none
Of her privileges under the State Constitu-
ton. The guarantee OF Jury trial can be
awaited Of only by persons charged with
offences which were triable by jury when
the State Constitution was adopted. The
statute under which MARY MILLER was
prosecuted ia first found in the Acts Of As
sembly Cf 1si7-'48; then in the Code OF
1919. Besides. justices Of the peace bad
jurisdiction over persons charged with
keeping houses of i'll fame (M.RY MrLLEB's
offence prlor 20 tho adoption OF the pres
ent Constitution. The form Of the war
rant in such cases is in Mdyo's Gmide-an
ante-bellum BOOK.
The Attorney-G General quotes Mr.. JUS
tice HARLAN, of the Supreme Court of the
United States, rs citing the case OF Jones
Robins. in which majority of the judges
of the Supreme Court OF Massachusetts
said:
ave believe II has been generally understood
aid practiced hero that rs the object OF the
clause tried by the jury 3to secure benentto
the accused which he may avail himself ., or
waive at his own election. IL Is not rio
lated by an act 81 legislation Witch aufhoT,'e> a
single MAJ fra;e 10 try and pass sentence, p;nfded
me act contains pyorisfon ha the 2<ffy shaH
hare an unquIl,fedand vntsttrsf right Of appeal
and trfu Jy jury in the appellate court
This decision fits the Virginia case ex-
actly. The Virginia statute (section 4l0S
of the Code) provides that 1.-THE accused
shall be entitled to q trial by jury IN the
same manner as if he had been indicted tor
the same offence in said court"
The Attorney Generals case is certainly
meritorious one. He ought to gain 1t ii
that result ought to follow because of the
bad results that will flow from the decision
in Miller rs. The Commonwealth. As to TINS,
we need not add much 10 what we have
heretofore said. We must, however. hold
that. as it would be iudge-made law to
confine the constitutional guarantees in the
Federal Constitution to persons entitled
to them at the time of the adoption of
that instrument, so it may be possible that
the courts have construed the State Con-
stitutions wrong in holding that the guar
antees therein contained belong only to
certain class of persons. How would
Article V. of Amendments to the United
States Constitution stand such a decision
1t provides;
"No person shall be held to answer tor capi-
tai or otherwise infamous crime unless on a
presentment or indictment OF grand jury.
Nor shall any person be compelled In any cri'ni-
nal case TO be n witness against himself. or be
denriy ed OF life Iberfy or property without due
process of law" &C., &c.
No court would hold that these guaran-
tees belong only to persons who had them
before the adoption Of that amendment.