The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-08
JUSTICE BRADLEY UPHELD
The Law Knows No Such Charge
As Suspicious Character"
The Accusation Held to he No Evil
dence of Crime-The Opinion of the
Ing in the Habens Corpus Proceed
ings in the Case of George Frazier.

The Court CT Appeals yesterday handed
down an opinion sustaining the ruling OF
Justice Bradley, declaring that there is no
such offence known to the law as "sus-
picious character" and that it is unlawful
that persons should be arrested on in
formations charging such an offence. Jus
tice Bradley rendered his opinion in this
matter in connection with the habeas cor
pus proceedings instituted for the release
of one George Frazier, colored, who was
arrested as a suspicious person and SEN
| fenced 10 confinement in the District jail
for term of four months. After hearing
argument on the question by District At
torney A. B. Duvall and Clarence A. Bran
denberg, Assistant District Attorney rep
| resenting the District, and Messrs. Jones,
Chase. and Frisby, representing the petit
toner, Justice Bradley ordered Frazier re-
| leased from confinement.
In discussing the matter the Court of
| Appeals held that general suspicion, with
out even reference to propensity or in
| tent to commit some particular crime or
| offence against the law regulations CT the
| Government must be conceded to be wholly
| imperative and without effect as a defni-
| ton of crime.
The court holds that mere suspicion Is
| no evidence of crime of any particular
| kind, and it forms no element in the con-
| stitution of crime. Suspicion may exist
without even the knowledge of the party
| who is the object of the suspicion as to
| the matter of which he is suspected The
| suspicion may be generated in the mind of
one or more persons without even colora-
! Bile foundation of truth for the suspicion;
| and yet the party, the object of the sus-
! plcion may, under the statute upon which
| the prosecution against the appellee was
| founded, be seized and imprisoned, tried,
and convicted, merely because some per-
| son or police officer may have concluded
| whether upon reasonable ground or not,
| that he was a suspicious person.
! 'Of what suspected and what degree of
suspicion exists must always be the
! thought that occurs upon such a charge as
that made in this case. But here the party
| is charged, in an abstract way, of being a
| suspicious person, merely, there being no
act or conduct of his mentioned in the
| statute to which suspicion could relate.
| How is he to meet such charge? Sus-
/ picion as conception of the mind is well
defined as the imagination of the existence
| of something upon little or no evidence;
! doubt mistrust, and so the adjective term
/ suspicious descriptive of the quality or
| condition of person, as well the party
I suspecting as the party suspected, is de-
! reason distrustful, liable. or open TO sus-
| picicn; exciting suspicion: giving reason
! or ground to suspect or imagine i'll.
THE judgment and sentence CT the
| Police Court are assailed in this case upon
/ the ground that the act of Congress. IN
| der which the prisoner was convicted and
sentenced. is in respect 10 the particular
| offence charged. unconstitutional, or is 50
/ indefinite TO this particular offence as TO
! be void and without effect II this posi-
! ton is well taken, ii affects the foundation
/ of the whole proceeding. Fer. as said by
I the Supreme Court An unconstitutional
/ law is void and is as no law. An offence
/ created by it is not crime. conviction
| under it is not merely erroneous butts il
! legal and void, and cannot be legal cause
. of Imprisonment -
! The court cites number of cases hold
/ ing that the law is unconstitutional. Con-
| tinuing. the court says:
We are, of course. sensible Of the fact
that it is only in cases where Legislative
power has been clearly transcribed in de-
claring that to be law which is not within
legislative competency, that courts are
justified in declaring any particular p-o-
vision of an act of Congress void and with
out effect; and especially where the act
lates to matters within the District of
Columbia over which Congress has full and
exclusive legislative power. But thare are
certain fundamental rights of person and
property, even in this District, that are
beyond the power of Congress to disre-
gard or violate.
THE rights secured to persons and prep
erty by the fourth and eighth amendments
TO the Constitution are among such rights.
The power of Congress to legislate for this
District in matters of police. are certainly
very large, and necessarily so, but there
are certain fundamental naXims of a free
government that would seem to require
that the rights of personal liberty and pri-
waite property should be held sacred. At
least no court Of justice in this country
would be warranted in assuming that pow
er to violate and disregard them linked
under any general grant of legislative au-
thority. or ought to be implied from any
general expressions that may be found in
any of the articles of the Constitution.
Unless an appeal is taken by the District
authorities 10 the Supreme Court OF the
United States, the effect of this opinion
will be TO restrain the local police from ar
resting persons on the mere suspci3n that
they are not law-abiding Hundreds of
persons, perhaps thousands of persons
have been arrested in the District and
charged with being suspicious characters.
Many of these have been strangers in the
city, without friends no means of proving
to the Police Court judges who they were
what brought them to the city, what were
their intentions in coming. how long they
intended 10 stay, where they came from. or
whittier they were bound Most OF those
arrested on the charge of being Suspicious
persons belong TO the class known as
tTamps.
Charles e. PIunkett Mis2sng.