The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-31
CRAWFORD CAMPBELL CASE
Query: What is Its Legal Status !?

Query: What is Its Legal Status?
Editor of The Times:
Sir: a few days ago a friend Of the
oar asked my opinion of the legality of
the late trial the above case calling
my attention 70 the suggestion of the
hon. j. Thompson Brown in your issue
OF the 7th, inst. 1 have read Judge
Browns letter and am much incliped to
agree in his conclusions.
OF course If there was no authority in
the judge of Amherst County Court to
call judge Of another county to sit
in his case, then the latter had no power
whatever in the matter In other words
his right to sit in the case was alto
gether dependent upon the authority OF
the Amherst judge to call him. Did the
judge of the County Court of Amherst
have that authority? Clearly he did not.
The authority is claimed to have been
derived under section 1899 of the Code.
In my judgment this section does not
give it. Let us look closely at its Ian
guage. Here it is in full: when the
judge of a circuit county or corporation
court, In which a prosecution is pending,
is connected with the accused or party
injured or so situated in respect to the
case as in his opinion to render it unit
that he should preside at the trial, he
may enter the fact on the record; and
thereupon, the judge may change the
venire as hereinbefore provided, or may
procure,i fthe case be in a Circuit Court,
the judge of another Circuit or Corpo-
ration, if in a County Court, the judge
of another county, of if in a Corporation
Court, the judge of another Circuit or
Corporation Court, to try the case" Now
it is plain that the authority needed
could not be derived from the first branch
Of the section, for it says where the
judge is connected with the accused or
party injureu.' The accused means, of
course, some person other than the
judge" The other branch says. or is 80
situated with respect to the CASE. that
is the case of some other person pending
language could not be predicated of the
case of the judge himself. Such thing
was never in the legislative contempla-
ton. If the section had been intended to
provide FOR such a case as this, the Legis-
lature would have inserted before the
word So in the third line of the printed
section the words is himself on trial or
is. SO that this part of the section would
have read or is himself on trial or IS
so situated in respect to the case as in
his opinion to render it untiet.' &c.
Plainly, I repeat, such conditions were
never in the legislative mind, We're never
foreseen and have never been provided for
If l am correct in this. then the call of
another judge by Judge Campbell was
ultra wires. and the organization of the
trial court, being without lawful author
ity, all its proceedings. emanating as they
did from one not invested with authority
under the law, could not have been other
wise than imperative, null and void
An acquittal by tribunal without au-
thority is no valid acquittal at all. Elk
nihilo nihil fit And SO it seems the case
would stand as if nothing whatsoever
had been done What then? Why, it re-
mains for the Legislature to provide for
the trial of such cases by express stat
ute. But my questioner asks: Would
not such legislation be amenable to OBJ
lection as being eN post facto?" an
swer, think not EX post facto laws are
defined to be flaws which make an act
punishable in manner in which it was
not punishable when committed Now.
law providing for the trial only of such
case as the one in question would pro-
vide the remedy merely. would not at all
change the punishment OF malicious
or unlawful assault with intent to
MAIN, dishgure,'' ETC., or of a simple
assault and battery. The punishment
would remain the same and so such an
act would not fall under the apprehenued
condemnation of being ex post tacto.
The matter of limitation, too. would re-
s.lisin the same. That. IS. if the crime
were malicious or unlawful assault,