The star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1908-1909, 1908-11-10
ASBURY BANKERS
MUST SERVE TINE
HIGH COURT RULES
Twining and Cornell Are De-
feated in Appeal from
Sentences.
--
FAILURE TO TESTIFY is
EVIDENCE OF GUILT HERE
Jersey Justice INDICATED on
Point ON Which Plea
Was Made.
Especial to the Evening start

WASHINGTON. Nov. 10.-The Su-
preme Court yesterday affirmed the
sentences of six and four years respec-
lively imposed on Albert c.. Twining,
president, and David C. Cornell, treas
urer, of the Monmouth Trust and Safe
Deposit Company, of Asbury Park. for
violating the law of that State in con-
nection with the wrecking of that in
~stitution. incidentally the court, for
the first time in passing on what con-
stitutes the due process of law, guar
anteed by the fourteenth amendment
to the constitution, laid down the line
between State and Federal rights in
that connection.
The trust company closed its doors in
February, 1908, and when the State
bank examiner investigated he found a
recent payment of $44,S75 for ISL shares
Of stock of the First National Bank Of
Asbury Park, which ave a controlling
interest in the latter. AS authority for
this expenditure Twining and Cornell
produced a o of the minutes of Il
meeting of the directors of the trust
company providing for the purchase,
which was subsequently found to b.
false, no such meeting having taken
place. They were indicted and con-
victed in 1904 under the State law for
bidding the exhibition under such cir
cumstances of any false paper intended
to deceive the examiner.
Ground of Appeal.
After their sentences had been ap-
proved by the New Jersey Court of
Errors and Appeals, the prisoners
--..-I+ fl1 Aa,o - thA Iro,,-.t
where 1t was argued March 9 and 10
last, and had since been under con-
sideration by the court. The principal
ground for the appeal was that the
trial judge in his charge to the jury
permitted the fact that the prisoners
had not taken the stand to testify in
their own behalf to appear as a prob
able evidence of their guilt. This it
was commended was a denial of the
rights guaranteed by the constitution
against being compelled to testify
against themselves.
In delivering the opinion of the
court, Justice Moody said the law of
New Jersey permitted an inference of
probable guilt to be drawn from failure
to testify and the question was whether
that law was repugnant to the Federal
CONSTITUTIONS Lllt thtlllDtlOIl
testimonial compulsion was universal in
American law, although differing in
scope and limit, it was not embodied
in the Constitution until the adoption
of the ten amendments. Since then all
the States except New Jersey and Iowa
had placed 1t in their constitutions.
The States, therefore, as far as the
State courts were concerned, had sup
posed that the privilege had it's origin
in the constitutions and laws of the
States and that persons appealing to
jt must look to the State for their pro-
lection.
While 1t was conceded the defendants
were not protected against compulsory
testimony by the fifth amendment, it
was demanded as one of the funda-
mental rights of national citizenship,
guaranteed by the fourteenth amend
ment. against State action.
No Exact Definition.
AS to the claim hat the defendants
were by the charge denied due process
of law, Justice Moody goes at length
into the history of American and Eng
]ish law to show that there was no
exact definition of what constituted it,
n he quotes from numerous decisions
to show its elasticity. Exemption
from testifying had no place in the
Jurisprudence of civilized and free
countries outside the domain of the
common law, and it was nowhere OBJ
served among the American people in
the search for truth outside the ad-
ministration of the law.