Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-01

petitioner would not be entitled to the writ
now, although the other six months were in
void.
The very eminent counsel who represented
the petitioner in Tweed's case 50 y. Y, 559
must have taken the same view of the law,
as they delayed making applica ton for his
unLscnarge upon habeas corpus until after
tne expiration of so much of his sentence as
was legal. 1t follows therefore, that IL the
SIX months Imprisonment imposed by the
court Tor non-payment OF the fine was ille-
gal and beyond the power OF the court to
Impose, still the petitioner would not be en-
Titled to the writ, the first six months
which the court had undoubted Jurisdiction
TO Impose had not expired.
No Doubt of the Courts Power
But think there can be no doubt about
the power of the court to add the six
months for the non-payment Of The fine un-
der the act of July %. 1892, which contains
provision in the following language: In
all cases where the said court shall impose
the fine IL may. in default of the payment
OF the fine imposed, commit the defendant
Tor such term as the court thinks right
and proper. not to exceed one year. In in
argued that the act creating the penalty
which had been imposed upon the petfttoner
was enacted after the act of 1892 and thar
the section quoted does not apply But that
secuon is general, and the language is broad
enough and necessarily includes all fines
I imposed under laws thereafter enacted
as well as those existing at the time NJ
does there seem TO be any reasonah HE
ground for the distinction made by counsel
mat II was intended TO apply only in cases
where the only penalty was fine ana NOT
nne and Imprisonment There Is NO
language In the act which can be construed
10 restrict ii in such cases Even without
.ne ala OF statute expressly comforting the
power, IL has been held by the Supreme
court that the power is inherent in the
court TO imprtson as a means of enforcing
ene payment of fine. Elk parte Jackson.
S6 L. s., 737.
The seventh ground of the petition Ga
that the mittimus commits the petitioner 10
! an alleged officer unknown 10 the lan,
10 VII: The intendent of the Washington
work house. The work house is a denarT
ment OF the asylum, and the officer is called
In the law the intendent of the ASYLUM. h,,t
ne mas charge Of the work house and Gus
tody or all its inmates. and even N he he
misdescribed in the mittimus. that would
| not AFFECT his power to hold the petitioner
/ under the mittimus
The Infamy of the Punishment
This leaves for consideration the eighth
/ and last ground alleged I'm the petition. TO
4 Wit; That the punishment is infamous, and
4 therefore the Police Court had no jurisdic-
ton or the case, because of the constitu-
tional provision that no persons shall be
held to answer for a capital or otherwise
Infamous crime unless on the presentment
or indictment OF grand jury"
That the punishment in this case is in
famous is sought to be established by the
case of en- parte Wilson, ia L. s.. Az. Will
son was convicted of counterfeiting gov
eminent securities, the penalty for which,
/ py the statute, was a fine of s. coo, and i'm
prisonment at hard labor for fifteen years
ana ne was sentenced by the court to pay
! such fine and to be imprisoned at hard
|
! OF correction, an institution corresponding
In its system OF labor and confinement 10
an ordinary penitentiary.
| The Supreme Court held this TO be in
1 famous punishment. In the opinion there
are expressions from which. taken alone,
unmodifed by the rest of the opinion. an
intended to hold that confinement in any
institution where labor may be required OF
convict Tor any period of time should lie
considered Infamous punishment. But
when the whole opinion lis considered in the
| light of the fact of that particular case IL
supports no such theory. Indeed.-in the
course of the opinion there is a quotation
! from Chief Justice Shaw, considering the
same question in another case. in which,
after reciting the kind of labor and the cir
cumstances under which IL should be rem
dered in order to constitute infamous pun
ishment, he says: Some of these a convict
In the house of correction is subject TO: but
the house Of correction, under that and the
various names of work house and brides
well, has not the same character of in
fanny attached to it." And Mr.. Justice
Gray, who delivered the opinion in the Will
son case. guards against a misspplication
OF that decision by saying. Deciding moth
ing beyond what is required by the facts OF
the case before us. our judgment is that a
crime punishable by Imprisonment for a
term of years at hard labor is an infamous
crime" In the case of this petitioner the
statute does not prescribe hard labor an
part of the penalty. and the sentence Of the
| court does not impose IL, and 10 hold that
because some labor may DE required of the
petitioner while an inmate Of the work
house renders his punishment Infamous
would be carrying the doctrine to an ex-
| Wilson case
Ii follows that IL the petitioner were be-
| fore me upon a writ Of habeas corpus he
could not be discharged but would have TO
be remanded, and therefore the prayer Of
the petitioner for the writ must be denied.