Evening star., 1897-03-25
4 Serious Prcdfcamcn

Judge BradIey's holding la the recent
murder case tried before him. interpreting
the act of January Il which reduced the
death penalty in certain cases, leaves the
District in most peculiar situation with
regard to the punishment involved III
the consideration of certain pending
capital cases. According to the dictuE
of the court a marked contradiction exist
in section four of the act. The first clause
of that section expressly provides that the
act shall not affect pending cases. or
crimes committed prior to its passage. or
indictments found and untried at the time
the law passed upon the statute books
This is in direct conformity with thai
Cause of the constitution, paragraph 3.
section -. article l. which provides that
no bill of attainder or ex post facto law
shall be passed But the second clause of
the section of the law expressly provides
that juries may apply the law in all such
cases. In other words. the section frs;
declares that ii shall not be retroactive and
then declares that it shall. This contradic-
tion. Judge Bradley holds. operates a
repeal of all the penalties for capital crimes
committed prior to the act and in conse-
qucnce the cases now pending IL court are
affected and the criminals. if found guilty
even of murder in the first degree, may 60
scot free.
1t was plainly not the intention of Con-
gress to create so absurd and al the same
time so serious a situation. The bill which
became law originated in the House. be-
Ing offered by Representative Curtis OF
New York. who is not a lawyer, but who
has been striving for twenty years to Sc
cure legislation both state and national
decreasing the death penalty. The bill was
reported unanimously from the House CON-
mittee on the judiciary but it had not
been referred to the District courts as sucn
measures usually are. and thus the opinion
OF the local justices who would be called
upon to act under its provisions-shouid il
have been the that 1t was intended TO
operate in the District-was never obtained.
The measure was called up three times and
twice objected to. the third time giving rise
TO debate lasting four or five hours. In
the course of that debate all that was said
concerning the interference OF the clauses
of section and the result upon pending
cases was the following colloquy:
Mr.. Connolly QEs.,: Il would ike TO ask
the gentleman whether he feels entirely
satisfied that the proviso of section 1 is
altogether within the limits of the constitu-
ticn of the L s concerning post facto
laws. The section was read Now the
punishment of these crimes al the time they
were committed is death. Here is d pro-
vision for different penalty Is it safe to
aCd Such a prOvtSo? Is there not danger
that II may result in d general Jail delivery
Tor all criminals now awaiting trial for
these offenses o.
Mr.. Ray CNew York;: Il think not. 1
think this bill as il stands Is perfectly
safe in its provisions in that regard. This
question was most carefully considered and
examined into by the judiciary committee
IL mas been repeatedly held that you may
lessen the punishment after the commission
of the crime bur you can not increase it,
MI Powers tNermontl: rs IL not a COM
p!ete answer 10 the inquiry of the gentle
man from Illinois TO say that the meaning
oi the constitution in declaring that no ex
post factO law should be passed is tnat nc
act which when ii was committed was
innocent shall afteuUard be declared a
CRIME But ii does not touch at all the
question OF the penalty that shall be en-
1crced or inflicted
My Ray tNew York;: Il think that is
uIaoubfedly true. But | can say further
tlat II mas been held in the state OF New
loFk 'ahd &c not think II has been ques-
tHIed anywhere throughout the land, thai
a statute lesseniug the punishment which
mas been provided for d certain crime does
EOt infringe the constitutional prohibition
OF * post facto laws"
Thus 1t appears clearly that the House
wherz the contradictory section originated
'ld NOT intend that it should in any way
HiHct previous onenses- 1t is equally clear
'hdt, the section having been iudic,aIIv
heia 10 tear differently. it is the duty of
congress 10 declare al once in positive
terms. IN some form of repeating or amend
a'oIS ivSisiation. that the law has no such
"e>irihs ana that the penalties in force
prior 10 JanJ ary II shall stand against all
''Iilss committed prior to that date The
case illustrates in a measure the unhappy
HdlHt OF Congress nj l.Sri. .Ia
important matters or-hand