The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-22
SPARFF'S NECK SAVED.
Some Evidence Not AdMiSS-
ible Against Him.
HANSON is LIKELY TO HANG.
Refusal Of the Supreme Court to
Reverse His Case.
JURIES NOT THE JUDGES OF LAW.
One Of the Most Important Decisions
Ever Handed Down by the Nations
Highest Tribunal.
JURIES NOT THE JUDGES OF LAW.

OF the most important decisions ever
delivered by that body. 1t was in the case
of Herman Sparff and Hans Hanson VS..
the United States. These parties were
indicted Jointly in the United States
Circuit Court at San Francisco with
Thomas ST. Clair for the murder
of Maurice Fitzgerald on the 18th
of January, 1893, upon the high seas
on board the American bark Hesper. The
Circuit Court ordered separate trial for
each defendant and st. Clair was first tried
and convicted OF murder. The Judgment
against ST. Clair was affirmed in the Su-
preme Court at its last term.
The order for a separate trial having
been set aside, Sparff and Hanson were
tried together and were convicted Of
murder. Their case was submitted at the
last term of court.
The first question here was as to the adj
instability of the confession of Hanson, as
proved by the captain of the vessel and
two of the seamen. The court held that
these confessions were voluntary and ad-
Missile in evidence, except the confession
of Hanson to the captain of the vessel
made long after the alleged murder and
not in the presence of Sparff. The point
in dispute on this part of the case was
whether the exception made to the admis-
sibility of Hanson's confession, so far as
Sparff was concerned, was sufficiently
taken. The court was unanimous, with
the exception of Justices Brewer and
Brown, that the exceptions were sufficient,
and consequently that this Judgment must
be reversed as to Sparff, because the con-
fession of Hanson, duplicating him, having
been made when he was not present was in
admissible against him.
The principal question in the case was
that arising upon the charge of the court
that it was the duty of the jury to take the
law from the court, and also upon the re-
fusal of the court to instruct the jury that
they were at liberty, if they saw proper, to
find defendants guilty of manslaughter or
other offense less than that of murder.
Upon this question the court was unani-
nous in support of the ruling of Justices
Gray and Shiras.
The opinion and dissenting opinion on
this point are unusually elaborate and en-
body very full review of authorities,
English and American, upon the general
question as to the right of jury In
criminal case to decide the law and the
fact. The opinion OF the court was deliv-
cred by Mr.. Justice Harlan, holding that it
was the province of the court to answer as
TO the law and OF the jury to answer as to
the facts of a case, although the jury in
rendering the general verdict necessarily
disposed of the issue, compounded of both
law and fact, as to guilt or innocence.
Mr.. Justice Harlan said to the CALL
correspondent tonight that the opinions
on this case are the most elaborate and
lengthy ever delivered in the United
States Supreme Court since the organiza-
ton of that body in 1789 He says the de-
cisions viii not only attract attention in
California, where the parties are under
death sentence, but will be read with in
tense interest by the legal profession all
over the country.
Because, said he, eff the views OF the
minority of this court were to prevail, and
a mob of twelve men were to be allowed to
expound true law as well as to decide facts,
criminal jurisprudence would be revo-
lutionized. The average man, and nine
lawyers out of ten, would doubtless say,
without investigation of the question, that
courts were to expound the law and the
jury decide the facts; and they are right,
in my opinion, yet you would be surprised
to see the great array of authorities cited
by Justices Gray and Shiras in their dis
senting opinion"
The substances of view presented by the
court, through Justice Harlan, is contained
in the following paragraph from his opin-
ion q road in OOpv cO11rf 4O
Any other rule than that indicated in the
above assertions would bring confusion and
uncertainty in the administration of criminal
law. Public and private safety alike would be
in peril If the principle be established that
juries in criminal cases may of right disregard
the law as propounded to them by the court
Under such a system the principal function of
a Judge would be to preside and keep order
while jurymen, unframed in law, would de-
termine questions affecting life, liberty or
property according to such legal principles as
in their judgment were applicable to the parti-
eular case being tried. If because, generally
speaking, it is the junction of the jury to deter
mine the guilt or innocence nf the accused &C
coFding to the evidence of the truth or weight
of which they are TO judge, and the court
should be held bound to instruct them upon
points in respect to which there was no evil
denoe whatever, or to forbear stating what the
law is upon given state of facts, the result
would be that the enforcement Of the law
against criminals and the protection Of citizens
against unjust and groundless prosecutions
would depend entirely upon juries irrespective
of any settled, fixed, legal principles. If it be
true that the jury in criminal case is under
no legal obligation to take the law from the
courts, and jurymen may determine for them
selves what law is, it necessarily results that
counsel for accused may, of right, in the pres
ence of both court and jury, contend that what
the court declares TO be the law applicable to
case is not the law, and in support of his con-
tention read to the jury the reports of adjudged
cases, the views of elementary writers. Tn
doubtedly in some jurisdictions where juries
in criminal cases have the right, in virtue of
or statutory provisions, to decide
both the law and the facts upon their own
as to what the law is and as to what
the facts are, it may be the privilege of coun-
sci to read and discuss adjudged cases
before the jury, and in q few jurisdic-
tons in which it is held that the court
alone responds as to the law, that the
practice is allowed in Difference to long usage,
but upon principle, and where the matter is not
controlled by express constitutional or statu-
tory provisions, it cannot be regarded as the
right of counsel to dispute before jury the
law as declared by the court. Under the con-
trary view, if it be held that the court may not