The times., 1898-09-30
DELICATE POINT IN LAW
interpretations of the Glenn
ency Clause Disagree.
THE CASE OF STRATHERS
One Dissenting Opinion From the
Court of ApPenis Encourages At
Before the Supreme Court OF the
United Stakeholder Cases.

Attorney Samuel d. Truett, who defend
ed William NJ Strathers when tried for
murder in the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia. and who carried the
case to the Court of Appeals on excep-
tions 10 the charge TO the jury by the
trial judge in the lower court, viii sub
NIT the matter TO the Supreme Court of
the United States when that tribunal of
last resort reconvenes.
Strathers was convicted on February 10
last OF numbering Rosa Talbot. His at
torney made a motion for a new trial.
Justice Bradley who presided at the trial
overruled the motion.
Mr. Truett then took the case to the
Court of Appeals on exceptions to Justice
Bradley's charge TO the jury. The upper
court, by a majority of its members, con-
frmed the findings OF the lower court.
One of the justices. however. handed
down a dissenting opinion. on the
strength Of which Strathers's attorney
viii appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
When the opinion of the Court of APP
peals had been handed down Strathers
was sentenced TO be hanged. Mr.. True t.
however. was alive TO the advantage
given by the dissenting opinion, and as
it involved the constituting of recent act
of Congress. he brought the matter to the
attention of the Attorney General of the
United States As result, Strathers was
respited until January. 1899, in order thai
the matter might be fully considered
Since this case has been called to the
attention of the Attorney General several
similar cases have been presented from
different parts Of the United States The
question of law involved is the power of
the presiding judge at a murder trial un-
der the clemency clause in the act of
Congress OF January. 1897.
In his charge 10 the jury which convict
ed Strathers, Justice Bradley said: IF
you should reach the conclusion, gent e
men of the jury, that your verdict should
be guilty. il is your right, under a recent
act of Congress, to add TO this verdict,
Without capital punishment The re-
sponsibility is entirely with you and you
can render such verdict as you please.
1 mean that you have the power to do it
You can render verdict Of not guilty
in a case where the evidence clearly
shows guilt. OF course such action on the
part Of the jury would be a direct yio-
lation of their oaths- If the jury believes
a man was guilty and simply out OF pity
or sympathy or mercy rendered a verdict
Of not guilty the jurors would violate
their oaths ] have no doubt that this
act of Congress was intended to serve
some useful purpose. The penalty for
murder has not been disturbed by this
act of Congress 1t is fixed by law; the
jury neither makes nor unmakes it
Doubtless the intention of the legislation
was this: That in case in which fhe
jury reaches the conclusion that the party
on trial is guilty Of murder when circum-
stances are shown by the evidence that
are OF palliating nature ii may give the
defendant the benefit of those palliating
circumstances.
The member Of the Court of Appeals
who dissented from the opinion of the
majority said: In my opinion the Ian
guage. Of the act is plain and affords nc
room for construction, no appeal from its
letter to its spirit. Public policy in re-
spect to the punishment of offenses is q
matter within the exclusive control OF
Congress, and departures therein whether
to be regarded as wise or unwise mus
be given effect TO as declared. To my
mind II appears plain that while Congress
did not abolish capital punishment for the
crime of murder ii nevertheless commit.
ted the matter OF its infiiction TO the un
controlled discretion of the jury in eact
case. If il had been intended that tn,
exercise Of this power of commuta ton Of
the death penalty should depend upon th'
court or upon the jury subject to the ad
vice and admonition of the court I thinl
II would have been SO expressly declared