The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-15
An Interesting Case.

The attention OF tho people OF this State
should be called to an extraordinary pro-
ceedng taken by tho courts OF Vermont
against citizen Of New York. for acts per-
formed In New York which were perfectly
lawful here. although they would have
been unlawful II performed in Vermont.
Tho serious part Of tho matter Is that q
majority OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States has upheld this act OF wrong.
One JOHN O'NErLL. residing at Whitehall.
IN this State. sold liquor In demijohns sent
to him to be filled. Hc sent them to pur-
chasers In Rutland. Vermont. by express.
co. D. There Is no statute in New York
which forbids the sale OF liquor. There
IL. however, such a law In Vermont. 1t
never was 81 posed until now that the peo-
pie Of New York could be seized In the
State OF Vermont and punished for acts per-
formed in their own homes. This has now
been done. The liquor was not sold In Rut-
land 1t was sold in Whitehall and deliv-
cred to the agents Of tho purchasers. Tho
Vermont authorities did not cross over to
New York and kidnap O'NEIIL but waited
until he went to Vermont on visit
Then they seized him. Tho Vermont court
pronounced him guilty OF 3O7 separate Of
fences III 1NuUlduus DcCduSo lle Hai eoiu
liquor in New York. which the purchasers
had carried into Vermont. or course. tho
transactions complained OF. being inter-
State commerce. were beyond the authority
OF any State law. At least. such was the
case until this decision of Vermont was up
held by the Supreme Court Of the United
States. All previous decisions OF that
court on tho subject OF Interstate COM
merce are nulli1ed by this decision.
The complaint against O'NE1LL did not
inform him to whom he had ever sold any
liquor. nor at what divers times. other than
the 25th day Of December. 1882. he had sold
any at all He was thus deprived Of any
opportunity to defend himself by reason OF
the Indebtedness Of the complaint. For the
selling OF liquor in WHITEHALL New York. he
was falsely charged with having sold 1t in
Rutland sO7 times. and was sentenced to
pay fine Of $614O and costs amounting to
$497. 96. and to stand committed until the SEN
tence was complied with: and In case the
fine and costs were not paid within given
time. he was to be confined at hard labor in
the House OF Correction for term OF 1924
days. a period Of over flfty-four years.
In the Supreme Court Justices FIELD.
HARLAN. and BREWER dissented from the
opinion Of the majority.
The people OF the State Of New York
should be put on their guard against visit
ing the State Of Vermont. lest they meet a
fate similar to that OF O'NEILL. There are
many statutes in Vermont OF which the
people Of New York are ignorant: and. &C.
cording to this wonderful decision. the
State OF Vermont can punish New Yorker
g. ,rho Ia IN III I how Se
statute in Vermont forbidding such acts.
The only conclusion to be drawn from this
remarkable proceeding is that the laws OF
Vermont are operative in New York. and
can be enforced against an offender in New
York whenever he crosses over into the
other State. AS remarked by Justice
FIELD in his dissenting opinion: Had
ONEILL been found guilty OF burglary or
highway robbery he would have received
less punishment than for the offences of
which he was convicted. 1t was six times
as great as any court in the State OF YER
mont could have imposed for manslaugh-
ter. forgery. or perjury. 1t was one which
in It's severity. considering the offence OF
which he was convicted. may justly be
termed both unusual and cruel.'
What remedy can the Empire State apply
for the protection Of its citizens? Can it
enact and enforce a law making it crime
for tho authorities OF Vermont to interfere
with any citizen OF New York under such
circumstances as those above described
At any rate. some remedy should be found
by which the State OF New York can exer-
else the same powers in Vermont as Ver-
mont is authorized by the Supreme Court
OF the United States to exercise In the State
OF New York.
The two Houses Of our Legislature might
instruct their Judiciary Committees to con-
slider the matter in the light Of the Supreme
Courts decision. and Of Justice FIELDS
dissenting opinion. and to report what
measures are necessary and proper to vim
dictate the rights Of our citizens against the
pretensions OF the authorities OF Vermont.
A SANDER on Womanhood.
AccordinD fo the Raw Mr. DIxoN n een