Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-10
Judge BraaleSs Interpretation Of a
Suspicious Character.
WRITTEN OPINION PLACED ON RECORD
Pesson Conv9ted5n the Opinions
d Offers.
HoUT DUE PROCESS

49, ''1-s itAiaOS0S SoI puS III Tie
case of George Fraser. It will be remem-
bered that Fraser was convicted of being
suspicious character" and was SEN
fenced to pay fine sof $40 and. in de-
fault, to be committed to the workhouse
Tor l2D days. Fraser was taken before JUS
ice bradley on wilt of habeas corpus and
promptly set at liberty, Justice Bradley
hololhS mat being a suspicious character
was no oHense under the statute named
IN the information upon which Fraser was
tried, and is otherwise unknown to the
law An appeal from the ruling is now
pending in the Court of Appeals The mat
ter is one of more than usual interest par
tlcularly 10 the police department, and the
observations of Justice Bradley recorded
today are, therefore, Of interest.
Constitutional Question.
One question to be considered according
to Justice Bradley is whether the statute
relating to the punishment of suspicious
person by fine OF Imprisonment is consti-
tutional He says:
First as to its Indebtedness. 1t may
be concluded that " lille the words equally
Apply 70 persons who suspect habitually,
VINO are OF suspicious nature, and to those
who are liable to suspicion, the objects of
the statute are the latter. Yet that does
not give definiteness. Assuming that the
statute was intended for that class of ''sus-
plc1ous persons that is, those who are
suspected the inquiries that yet require
answer are by whom and of what must the
accused be suspected in order to render
MIN amenable? Some other incidental ques-
ticns are: What is the measure of the sus-
picion that must be entertained, is slight
breath sufhcient must 1t be a gale?
what grade of acts must be suspected and
shall it be of one committed or of one still
resting in intent? Does the statute apply
TO person suspected of profane tendencies
rnr,1l Tt.
tertained profane thoughts be sufficient to
justify prosecution. would it be neces-
sary that the utterance and expression of
profanity be suspected.
Amount and Character of Evidence.
Upon the trial what amount and what
character of evidence is necessary to con-
Wet and what must the accused expect to
meet? Are witnesses necessary or is the
accusation of suspicious person to be de-
termined by judicial inspection of the ac-
cused? If the latter, how hopeless the con-
dition of one called to answer such a charge
before judge who is inclined to SUSPECT
who Is himself Suspicious person by ma
ture! II testimony is required. is the ac-
cused to be convicted upon the testimony
of witnesses who suspect by reason of GEN
eral rumor or from the suspicious they have
heard expressed by others; or must the
witnesses, to be competent, form their sus-
p!clonS from observations of the accused
or evolve ii from their own inner conscious
ness! Obviously what is or what will con-
stltute suspicious person in the sense
OF the statute is beyond the power of con-
struction OF Interpretation and is purely
conjectural. If no judicial certainty can
be settled upon as to the meaning, the
court Is not at liberty to supply or make
one The court may not allow conjectural
Interpretation to usurp the place Of Judi
cial exposition. There must be a compe-
tent and efficient expression of the legs-
lative VIII.
To.
validity of the statute under which Fraser
Is restrained of his liberty is open to at
tack for vagueness, uncertainty and lack
Of definiteneSs.
Second as to BITS constltut,onautv
Justice Bradley continues, the statute au-
thoriZes a fine in the discretion of the court
and it must be tested by the same measure
under the Constitution as if fine We're the
required penalty
Authorities Quoted.
The Justice quotes number of authori-
ties, and then says
by the common law intent unaccompa-
MED by unlawful act was not punishable,
and while it may be difficult to say what
provision Of the Constitution would be vio-
lated by a statute that punished such an
intent. it is perfectly plain that so con-
strued this statute is contrary to the es-
tablished principles of private rights and
distributive justice, and should therefore
be declared invalid.
If suspicious persons be construed to
mean either a person suspected of having
committed an offense, or a person suspected
of intending to commit an offense, the
prosecution of one so charged would natur-
ally be sustained by witnesses. it, indeed,
witnesses were deemed necessary, who
would state what they think of him or
what they have heard others say they think
of him. person guiltless of any unlawful
act might be thus convicted under such a
charge, and made victim of malicious Cos
sip of the personal spite of his perse-
cutors. The presumption of the law of the
innocence of the accused, that is his in
would be valueess under charge that he
is suspected. and proof that he had done
no act justifying suspicion might be no
answer to such charge.
Measure of Punitive Justice.
Whatever can be said in defense of the
requirement of sureties for good behavior
on the charge of suspicious person as a
measure of preventive Justice, and whether
the statute could be sustained If it went
only to that extent, a question that will
not undertake to answer now, it Is doubt
full if anything can be said in defense of
the statute a measure Of punitive JUS
tice. Such a law is a dangerous weapon In
the hands of an enemy or of a suspicious
person, whether such enemy or suspicious
person be an officer of the law or a private
citizen. 1t need hardly be said that it may
be made the means of petty persecution.
and also of monstrous wrong and oppres-
sion.
I'm subjectinga man to fine and impris-
onment for what others think of him, or
because of his reputation, the statute de-
prives him Of property or liberty without
due process of law"