Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-06-16
JUDGE BRADLEY'S INSTRUCTIONS.
What the Court of Appeals Said in It's
Opinion in Strathers' Case.

Opinion in Strathers' Case.
In the case of the condemned murderers
who were respited by the President in order
that the United States Supreme Court
might pass upon the question of the in
structions to the jury of the judge who
tried the case, the following extract from
the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the
Strathers case, delivered by Chief Justice
Alvey, shows the grounds of the belief Of
that body that Judge Bradley performed
his full duty;
In the present case, the justice at the
trial below, fully charged the jury both as
to the law and as to his view of the facts;
but leaving the facts entirNy to the jury.
And with respect to the amendatofy act of
January Il. 1897, the judge was explicit in
charging the jury, that If they concluded
that the accused was guilty of murder, it
was their right, under the act of Congress,
to add to their verdict, without capital
punishment He further said: Il have no
doubt that this act of Congress was in
tended to serve some useful purpose. The
penalty for murder has not been disturbed
by this act of Congress. That is fixed by
law, and the jury can neither make nor Un-
make it. Doubtless the intention Of the
legislature was this that in a case in which
the jury reached the conclusion that the
party on trial is guilty of murder and cir
cumstances are shown by the evidence that
are of palliating nature, tney may give
circumstances, and say in their verdict.
without capital punishment" If, now
ever, the jury believe that there are no pal
liating circumstances, it is Their duty not to
add anything to their verdict but 10 leave
the penalty as it stands And the judge
further added: But the object of this pen
atty is 20 protect society; AMI the jury
should not interfere with ii unde- any Cir
cumstances, unless the circumst InCcs are
such as to satisfy the jury that this quaifi-
cation provided by the stdtIte should be
added TO their verdict
This, think, was clearly right. If 1t
was not the intention of Congress to abol
ish capital punishment. but to leave the
matter of degree of guilt to the finding of
the jury, that must. in the nature of things,
depend upon the facts of the case. We think
the judge below was strictly right in the
Interpretation of the act of the 10Th OF
January, 1897, and that there was no error
in the terms of the charge to the jury.
The jury We're left entirely free under the
instruction of the court to determine the
question: whether the circumstances of the
crime charged were of a character to justi-
fy them in returning a verdict for the nit
igated punishment or such as was returned
by them.
In several of the states of the Union
statutes substantially similar to that of the
act of Congress of January 10, 1897 exist
and in many of such states those statutes
have been construed by the courts and
given practical application; and, with but
one or two exceptions brought to our at
tention, those statutes have been construed
and applied under the direction of the
courts in the same manner that the act
here in question has been construed and
applied by the court below in the charge
given the jury. The People VS.. Welch, 40
Cal, l19; People vs. Brick, IS Cal, 100;
People vs.. Bawden. 30 Cal, 1915: Brown VS.
State, 100 Ala, 20: Inman VS. The State
~ Ca, 262; Valentine vs.. The State II Ga
49,; Nowacryk vs.. State, 139 ILL., 1886. In
all these cases upon statutes substantially
similar to the act of Congress here inyoIv-
ed, the courts have held that the degree
OF punishment should be determined with
reference to the special facts and circum-
stances of the case.
Flhdlng no error, the judgment appealed
from must be affirmed and 1t is so ordered