The evening times., 1900-06-09

points why the Irlshmen should not be
depoTted.
Mullett and Fitzharris are the men who
were convicted of completely in the assas-
sination of Lord Cavendish and Secreta-
ry Burke in Phoenix Park, Dublin, and
who were pardoned after having served
seventeen years in prison. They came to
this country after their release, but were
not permitted TO land.
The brief of Mr.. Curtis has been
placed in the hands OF Assistant Secretary
Secretary Taylor of the Treasury Depart
ment, who will render a decision in the
,ase. The chief points in the document are
as f0llows:
"First-Although the Supreme Court Of
he United States has recognized the con-
Ititutional character of this Board of
Special Inquiry. still it has never given Ii
cense to that board either by Federal sta
tute CT judicial decision, to conIemn any
person TO a sentence of deportation upon
evidence incompetent and insufficient In
other words, while they possess the pow
er within the pale of a lawful discretion
they are responsible to the appellate tri-
for a judgement rendered upon evidence
which is insufficient and incomplete in
law.
"Second-Both Of these persons. so far
as the record discloses, have been the re-
cipients of q pardon for the crime whereof
IL is alleged that they were convicted, and
il will be new construction of the act of
Congress, il people convicted substantially
Of political offences. receiving pardon
from the Government whose laws it is
claimed they offended. should be pursued
as outcasts and felons upon the friendly
soil of the United States, land against
whose Government and institutions they
have never raised hand and for the per-
petuity OF which they viii never cease to
pray.
''Third-So far as the respondent MuIlet
is concerned there is no evidence what
soever of a legal character His refusal
either TO be sworn or TO testify may be
excused upon the basis Of tle legal prIn-
ciple that no person is obliged by our or
ganlc law to incriminate or degrade him
self. The burden Of proof was on the
GoveTnmvE TT TO show that he was an indi-
vidual who came within the provisions Of
the Prescribing statute. 1t is unnecessary
TO urge to a legal mind that the mere
statement of Fitzharris, however obtained
is not competent TO show the trial. con-
yleuon, and condemnation of the respon-
dent Mullet; therefore, l shall spend no
time upon that.
Fourth-The testimony, so called of
the respondent Fitzharris. given at the
secret enquiry on May 9th, would not be
received in a court OF law He was not
permitted to have the advice and assist
ance of counsel; he was not Informed OF
his rights under the law. nor Of the effect
that the answers TO the questions pro-
pounded to him through hostile sources
would have upon his deportation from the
United States. He was entitled to receive
that consideration from the Board of Spe-
clal Enquiry. and his statement in refer
ence to himself should not be regarded in
the light OF controlling testimony; much
less c1sn IL be used as a legal factor against
the Status or interests of Mullet | need
not argue TO intelligent minds that the
mere statement of a lay person cannot
prove matter Of record, such as the trial
condemnation and judgment rendered
against an alleged criminal, either in this
country or upon foreign soil. The law
regulates how these matters shall be
proven and established; but If the record
is 10 be taken by the Government for the
purposes Of condemnation il cannot refuse
to receive it for the purposes of protection
and defence; and therefore il will be TO-
ticed that neither of these gentlemen
came to the United States to remain
Mr. Mullet is traGesman in the city /
or Dublin, in good standing, unmolested |
by his own Government. The card of his /
business was submitted on the original |
enquiry, and he says that he intends 20 /
return TO his own country but he will 1
never submit, without resistance. to being 4
deportec from the United States as a Grim /
inaI which he declares himself not to be; 4
and Mr.. Fitzharris tells US that he came 1
here for visit, to see this country Of
those laws and liberties he has received
such hattering information; that he has
sufficient means for his maintenance: that I
he can get more on application 10 his
friends at home. and that he IS enabled |
20 work al his business. and he states what |
that is, If necessary to maintain himself
Therefore, he is not in the sense of the
law pauper. And In this connection.
substantial citizens of New York will give
ample bonds to any amount that he shall
never become a charge upon the people Of
the United States Fitzharris has received.
assuming the record to be correct and the
evidence properly admitted a pardon OF
the Government whose laws il is claimed
ne offended and TO this pardon. this act
oI grace, Is attached but one condition
mat While in the old country he shall re-
port himself at the end of stated terms. In
point OF law, II differs in no sense from
the pardon of MIR. Mullet. so far as the
operation of the Emigration law Of the
United States is concerned.
rHLn-1nere is no legal, competent |
proper evidence that either of the detain-
ed persons are convicts, or have ever been
eonviets, and the only legal. competent
evidence contained in the record is. that
by whatever term the offence technically
might be known. it was the result the
outcome. Of political agitation. and is
therefore. what the law denominates |
political offence and these men are DO
iltieal offenders in the sense that the laws
OF emigration OF the United States are
sought to be applied to them.
Sixth-This appellate tribunal heinq
vested with quasi-judicial functions. has
the right, in the absence of any express
decision. law. or Judgment Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States. TO con-
strue those laws Of Congress which are
applicable to the case at bar, and which |
have not already been construed by fudi-
cial determination; and there is no law
In this land that declares men to be con-
yicts who have received the pardoniny
grace of the Government; and the fact /
that they have been convicted. In a legal. |
technical sense, loses its strength and
pertinency in the other fact. that they are
restored by the act of pardon TO their ,
status existing before the offence. and II
was never the intention of Congress by
the Act of 1891. or any other act in refer
ence 10 the exclusion OF foreigners from
the UnlSed States. to ordain that persona
VINO mad been pardoned by their own Gov
should be received and treated
as eonviets who had either ESCAPED from
justice or who had served out their term
and no such construction has heretofore ,
0een put upon any law Of Congress in ref ,
srence to emigrants OF alleged criminal