Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-08-20


imprisonment was not the penalty,
but the imprisonment was merely
means OF enforcing the payment of the
lines and at any time when they pay
the fines they can have their liberty
He thought that il the men were
posing aa martyrs they should not come
before the court. IL is a voluntary
act on the part OF the mon, as they can
Obtain liberty on paying the fines
Mr.. Hayes remarked that it was de-
priving the men Of their property
without due process of law, but Mr..
Rldgely did not agree with him.
Mr.. Ridgely referred to the fact that
Chancellor Nicholson had decided
that the convictions were lawful.
Referring to the local laws of Dover,
MIR Ridgely said that they weru neces-
sary to preserve the peace and good
order of the town, and that the mon
had violated one Of these local laws.
He thought the Federal court could
not Interfere unless the provisions of
the Constitution or laws OF the United
States had been violated.
Mr.. Hayes said the commitments
were not mada out alike. One held
that town ordinance had been vio-
lated, and another that the charter of
the town had been violated. He con-
tended that neither the Legislature nor
the Town Council of Dover could give
the justice the authority which he
had exercised. The men must have
been convicted on one of two charges,
a noisy aasemblage or obstructing the
streets. He admitted that it, Alderman
Cooper had jurisdiction the court
could take no action, but held that
that was the question at issue. He
cited authorities to prove his assertion
that the town authorities had over
stepped their powers &
He said that il the authorities had
simply intended to fine the men, they
were being imprisoned for debt, which
is unconstitutional in this State. At
this point the crowd in the court room
appauded loudly. but order was re-
stored by the bailiff.
Mr.. Ridgely said it was not an ina
prisonment for debt, hut an imprison-
ment to enforce collection of the fine.
just before adjournment of court.
Attorney Ralston stated that he desired
to offer bail, so that the men need not
return to Dover jail, but Mr.. Ritlgely
said the State &C urt had refused to
accept bail, whereupon the Judge re-
of the sheriff of Kent county. Decision
was reserved.
In the United States Court, Monday
morning, Judge Wales handed down
his decision in the habeas corpus
cases of Single Takers James j. Hag-
garty and Arthur III. Stephenson, who
have been in Dover Jail for failing to
pay the fine and costs for the violation
of a Dover ordinance. Judge Wales
decides that the committing magistrate
bad the authority to try Haggarty and
renapds him to the custody of the
sheriff. Stephenson's term having ex-
pired, no decision was rendered in his
case.
The judges decision in full follows:
The petitioner states that he ia un-
lawfully restrained of his liberty, by
virtue of al alleged warrant of commit
ment, under the hand and seal of Peter
L. Cooper, alderman of the town of
Dover, directed to the sheriff of Kent
county, in whose custody he is now
unlawfully held. The warrant sets
forth that the petitioner was charged
before the alderman with being en-
gagged in gathering of persons OBJ
structing one Of the streets and side
walks of the town of Dover, and inter
fering with the full use of the same, in
violation Of section II, of the charter
of the town of Dover, and having been
tried, convicted and fined, and failing
TO pay the fine and costs, is committed
for the space of 30 days from this date
unless the costs and fine be sooner paid.
Section II reads thus: ''lt shall be
the duty Of the alderman of said town
and Council of said town, and of the
town constables, to suppress all riot
Gus, turbulent, disorderly, or noisy as
semblages or gathering of persons in or
about any buildings, used for any fair,
festival, concert, or any other social,
literary or religious meeting, Or any
entertainment whatsoever, or in tho
streets, lanes, square or alleys of SAID
town, at any time or season whatever; !;
to prevent all gathering whatever which
may obstruct or Interfere with the free
use of the streets or sidewalks, and for
this purpose it shall be the duty of any
OF said constables TO seize and arrest
any such persons SO offending and
carry them before the alderman of said
town whose duty it shall be to hear
and determine the case and upon con
viction before him the alderman shall
sentence any such person SO convicted
to pay fine not exceeding ten dollars
and may commit the party to prison
for period not exoceeding thirty days
or until said fine and costs shall be
paid. 1t shall be the duty of the alder.
man of said town upon complaint made
before him of any such riotous, turbu-
lent or noisy assemblages Or gatherings
as aforesaid to issue his warrant to any
of the constables aforesaid commanding
him to arrest and bring any such per-
son go offending as aforesaid before him
for trial. !"
The petitioner has sued out this writ
OF habeas corpus, claiming that SO much
of section II of the charter of Dover,
which confers authority upon the
alderman. to convict, fine and imprison
person charged with a violation of
| the same, is in contravention of sec
| tion l., article IA. of the amendments
of the Constitution Of the United States
and is therefore void. That portion of
| the amendment which is relevent to
tho present inquiry is as follows:
"No State shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities OF
citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty or property, without due
process of law; nor deny TO any person
within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
| lection of the laws.
BY sections ISL and 753 of the Re-
| vised Statutes Of the United States,
| the courts of the United States and
| the several Judges thereof within their