Evening star., 1897-03-24
JUDGE BRADLEY'S DECISION
Its Effect on the Pearson and
Other Cases.
THE TRIAL AT ISSUE


hour. There being no other charge pend
ing against the prisoner. Judge Bradley
discharged him from custody.
AS stated in The Star Gray and Phillips
became involved in quarrel over the
wife of the dead mans brother. Lavinia
Phillips. in Phillips court. between 24th
and 18th and NJ and streets. Melton's
brother. Richard. was slightly cut in the
back by Gray, and then the prisoner cut
Melton in the right thigh. infiicting Il,
wound which caused death in a few min
utes. Gray. who was found unconscious
several hundred feet from the scene O.
the tragedy. claimed that he did the cutting
in self-defense. The government. on the
other hand, contended that Gray was no.
assaulted until after he killed Phillips. bl
having been chased ard beaten by a mon
composed of the friends of the Phillips
boys.
Under New Law.
The case was tie first murder trial oC-
curing since the approval the 18th of las
January of the act Of Congress au.horiZ-
ing jury. in finding defendant guilty
of murder, to qualify their verdict by ado
ing thereto, without capital punishment
the act directing the court upon the rem
dition of such d verdict, to sentence TIL
defendant to imprisonment at hard labo.
for life. There having been some doubt
to whether or not the act is applicable.
here, the ruling of Judge Bradley in th
matter was awaited with unusual interes.
by me- mbers of the local bar. Befor,
charging the jury Judge Bradley stated
that he would not allow them to return
verdict finding Gray guilty of a graver OF
ferse tnan manslaughter. In explanation
or his position the judge stated that tn,
act above referred to is undoubtedly ap-
plicabie in the District of Columbia, anC
in the second place the evidence did no;
warrant verdict of guilty of murder.
Judge Bradley then went on to say tha;
while the act of January Is. 1897, provides
that its provisions shall not apply to or IT,
any way a1fect any proceeding or indct
ment then found or pending or that may
be found for any offense committed before
the passage of the act, and all offenses
committed before the passage of The act
shall be punished under the laws then ir
force, Provided That juries may return
qualified verdictS in such cases according
to the provisions of section l of the act
tthe one authorizing the qualified verdicp.
and the sentences shall be imposed as
therein provided. the effect of the act is to
repeal all punishment for the crime Of
murder committed prior to The passafe OF
the act. Courts. explained Judge Bradley,
must apply the law as they fini il, and
finding that the act of January 15, 1871 is
as he stated it to be. he remarked that it
was his duty to hold that at the present
time there is no punishment piesc ribed for
the crime of murder committed prior 10
that date.
The Fearson Case.
While Judge Bradley did not so rule no,
being called upon to do so in the Gray
case, it is the belief of District Attorney
Davis that the effect of the judges ruling
is to prevent the punishment for mur-
Ger of any one guilty of murder committed
prior to January -, 1897. whether the trial
vas or was not had before that date He
doubts, therefore, whether "Lum' Pearson.
convicted last fall of the mucder of John
Ford in Georgetown last August, and SEN
fenced to be hanged the Both of next month.
can be punished as for murder. aad that
If he can be punished at all it must be
after new conviction. which would, OF
course, involve the previous granting of
new trial by the Court of Appeals, where
tie case is now pending.
Mr.. Davis expressed surprise at the rul-
ing, but would say nothing more than that
the Judges view of the law one which
had never occurred to him tMr. Davis). and
that 1t had called forth very lively COM
ment. He added that he felt it his duty to
inform the Court of Appeals Of the ruling.
as. if 1t be correct the principle on which
it rests must govern that court in dispos
ing of the Pearson case.
The Judges Ruling.
That part of Judge Bradley's ruling in re-
lation to effect of the act of January II,
1897, was as follows:
The court is bound to take cognizance of
the statutes as they are passed, to give
effect TO the law as it exists, and the court
cannot overlook the fact that the statute
in force, so far as the peralty is concerned.
with reference to the crime Of murder, was
repealed by an act of Congress- which, it
appears, from the bill, was presented some
time n April or May last year, but which
became law January ID. 1897.
Now this statute is ex post facto as to
the crime that we are considering. or
course its provisions cannot be made to
apply to the crime we are trying. The
penalty that is provided by this act of Con-
Sress cannot be made to apply to a crime
ti,at committed before the passage of
the act.
I'm its fourth section it provides:
THAT nothing herein contained shall ap-
ply to or in any way affect any proceeding
or Indictment now found or pending or
that may be found for any offense com
mitted before the passage of this act, ami
all offenses committed before the passage
of this act shall be punished under the laws
then i'll force
Had the saving clause stopped there
there would be question that it would
be the duty Of the court to see that the law
that in force at the time of the COM
mission of this act should be enforced. But
Congress saw fit to go a little further, ami
provided:
That juries may return qualified YER
diets in such cases according to the pro-
visions of section one of this act, and the
sentences shall be imposed as therein pro-
vded.'
Now that refers to section one of the
act, which is: That in all cases where
the accused is found guilty Of the crime of
murder the jury may qualify their
verdict by adding thereto without capital
punishment" and whenever the Jury shall
return a verdict qualified as aforesaid the
person convicted shall be sentenced to i'm
prisonment at hard labor for life'"
Now, regarding this act as in force in
the District of Columbia, and l have TO
question II was SO intended. and that 1t is
in force in the District of Columbia, it
would be my duty If l submit the ques-
ton Of murder to this jury to charge them
in returning their verdict that they should
return it in the form which the statute
provides, IL the statute is applicable The
court cannot apply the statute, because it
is post facto-
Now the statute provides an entirely
different penalty from that which is i'm
posed by law which was in force at the
time Of the commission Of this alleged
crime, and by a well-known principle 1t
operates as an implied repeal. So that,
50 far as the crime of murder is concerned
that is committed prior to the time of
this enactment. there Is no law in force
today in the District of Columbia by which
that crime can be punished
THE plainest case upon that subject
u, AHn~~