The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-12-26
$50
Corner Lot. 6Oxt2O. IN a
good netghborhood.
- 1oz-sos New York Biz.

Coughlin. not BY name but by description.
was worthless" said Prosecuting Attor-
ney McElroy. "was undoubtedly correct.
was surprised. however, that the court
ordered Armstrong; release. The court
argued that because there was no charge
against Coughlin, Armstrong was not ac-
cused OF an offense. We took the stand
that It made no difference IL the COM
plant against Coughiin was defective. 1t
was not necessary to include the COM
plant in the indictment. but II was put
in to make the record more complete.
Our claim IL that because justice Of
the peace made an error as related to
Coughlin. 1t does not follow that Arm
strong II absolved. A case directly in
point was quoted from the New York de-
cisions. The error In the complaint lay
IN the use Of the word 'unlawfully.' in
stead Of 'corruptly.'"
The full text OF the supreme courts
decision ordering the release Of Arm
strong on the indictment Of conspiracy
to defeat the ends OF justice was received
from Olympia yesterday afternoon by
Attorney Piles. 1t was written by Judge
Dunbar. and concurred in by Judges
Gordon. Reavis and Fullerton. Fifteen
pages Of typewriter copy constituted the
document.
The COMPLAINT made by John r. Tay-.
lor before James G. Martin, justice of the
peace. in Chicago. May IS, 1899. was the
principal point on which the supreme
court ordered Armstrong; release. The
general idea that this complaint referred
to Armstrong is incorrect. Daniel Cough
lin, for whom Armstrong worked. was
the one spoken OF and attempted to be
described. The failure of this complaint
to charge a crime materially affected the
Indictment against Armstrong, in the
opinion of the supreme court of WASH
ington. having been made a part of the
official papers in the case.
In its decision the supreme court gives
the alleged complaint in full. Leaving
out the Introductory matter, TAYLOR took
oath as follows: I'm the county and
state aforesaid. person about feet 10
inches tall, medium complexion, whose
Christian and surname are unknown to
affiant, but whose person Is we'll known,
and who will be pointed out by affiant to
the officer executing the warrant, did UNI
lawfully attempt to influence the decision
OF your affiant. who was serving at that
time as a Juror in the matter pending In
court. This complainant has just and
reasonable grounds to believe. and does
believe, that said described person COM
mitted said offense. and therefore prays
that he may be arrested and dealt with
according to law"
After holding that the superior court
erred IN not going into the sufficiency of
the Indictment, and remarking that this
question has not been sQuarcly passed up
on by the United States court, numerous
cases are cited to uphold the action of
the state supreme court.
Coming to the great point in the case
the supreme court says: ''The basis OF
the right to extradition, It will be seen,
Is the allegation in the indictment or
affidavit that crime has been commit
ted by the person sought to be extradit-
ed.
TT appears from the record that no
arrest had been made at the time the In
dictment which is based upon this COM
plant was founded. and 1t may have been,
especially considering the meagerness'of
the description, that no arrest ever would
be made, and that there could be no at
tempt to conspire for the purpose of hiring
a witness to leave the state to evade tes-
tifying in the alleged proceeding"
where Error Occurred.
The section Of the Illinois statute upon
which this complaint was based Is then
given. 1t says that whoever corrupts or
attempts directly or indirectly to corrupt
any Juror In relation to any matter pend
ing in court shall be imprisoned in the PEN
itentiary not exceeding five years or fined
not exceeding $1,000 and confined in the
county jail not exceeding one year.
TT is true" continues the decision, that
a complaint made to a Justice of the
peace will not be scrlftinized as critically
as will an Indictment by a grand jury nor
will it be. required to follow as closely
rules of technical pleading. But even a
complaint made to justice of the peace
to give the justice Jurisdiction. must state
the facts which under the law constitute
a crime, Under the statute cited, 1t Is
not a crime to 'unlawfully' attempt to In
fluence the decision of juror in a mat
ter pending in court. But the crime Is to
attempt to corrupt not by unlawful in
fluencing. but by unlawfuliy influencing
how? The statute leaves nothing to con-
lecture or to the discretion of the court,
for 1t plainly provides that the attempt to
corrupt and unlawfully influence must be
by giving, offering or promising some gift
or gratuity. Through these agencies alone
must the corrupting influence be obtained
or attempted.
It Is also contended by the respondent
that 1t is sufficient to charge the crime In
the language of the statute. However that
may be, glance at the law and the COM
plant shows that the offense was not
charged in the language of the statute.
at is insisted by the respondent that the
pleadings of>the complaint in this instance
was matter of inducement, and that In
such cases that particularly Is not re-
uuired that is required in charging the
crime to which the respondent is to an.
swer. The trouble with this particular
case Is that while the indictment might
have been held SUFFICIENT II a general refer
ence had been made to the matter which
is pleaded by way of inducement, the plead
err did not see At to do this but pleaded
in full the complaint upon which the In
dictment Is based, and the complaint show
ing affrmatively that there was no juris-
diction in the Justice of the peace to is
sue the warrant for the arrest OF the de-
PENDANT, there could have been no trial
pending to base the indictment upon which
is presented against the defendant in this
case.
'.The whole record then affirmatively
showing lack of Jurisdiction in the justice
of the peace to try the original case, the
Indictment mus. be held illegal and void,
as the defendant is not charged with any
crime. 1t is not crime to attempt to infiu-
ence a person to leave the, state; 1t is
crime only when such attempt is made for
-. f,~ Il