New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-14
L0VAT AND EASEMENT
A Further Consideration Of the I'll !,
Two Traitors
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

Sir: The election being as much 49,,
is likely soon to be, will you peru,, ="
further word abou. the Casemen. e.,.,
garding its disposal as good justice. poo, -
tics and worse law, I some time ,in.. -, -
that Easements lawyers displayed sro., a..
rance through their inability TO ouo,. ~"
in point of their contentious: |. q. tia,
dictment was faulty because the A.. 49,,
which it was brought dealt only with TO-. -"
within the Kingdom Of England. 49,.
easements offence was alleged to hs,. -
committed outside that kingdom.
suggested that case in poin. va, H.. :.
Lord Lovat ("Love" was, Of course. a So.
rapher's bunder), who, arraigned for.
fence committed outside the jurisdI~s.-
the ordinary courts sitting at the plaza ~.
arrangement. could not, the proseerus. :,
mitted, be legally proceeded against 80
such law as thst employed against g..
ment. and who was, therefore. speeiau, -.
ceeded against by impeachment.
Your reply was that "Lovat was trisdk,u.
peers, the only unusual point being a.. |.
was on impeachment by the Common a..
his case had mot the least bearing on s.,,..
raised by Easements counsel" and that ~.
act OF 1908" should so convince me.
refer you to the authoritative Hu,,..,.
Lives of Lord Lovat and Duncan Forhs, :.
Culloden" Chapman & Hall. ls47). D. pa.
1.-THE other rebel lords had been tr;.d 1.
bill Of indictment by the grand jury o. sr,'
rey. moved by certiorari into the Hop,. :,
Lords. There was more than one r,....
against adopting the same plan with rnv,,
As he had not been in arms. he did not en,.
within the special act which authori..S ~.
presentment by grand juries in other eou,.
ties than those in which the treason had ~.
committed As no part Of the treason eh,r,,.
against him had occurred In England, he eoulS
not be presented there at common Law. srl
as presentment by grand jury was a novel;,
its working could not be trusted i.
Moreover, as the decision In favor az Al.
right TO the peerage had only been riven \,
the Court of Session, there was room q,
doubling whether he was peer, and An A.
lection to his trial by his peers on a eertio,ss
might be taken at some critical moment. rss
old constitutional form Of impeachment k,i
no local restrictions, and commons as well 4,
peers were amenable to IT," (See further. a
257.)
AS for "the act Of 1908" you do not id,r.
tify il. and find nothing in the statute Of II.
9Th Anne bearing upon the question at issue:
have | referred TO the wrong statute, I
should say the case turned upon the old act
cf Edward and not upon shy act Of Anne.
You add that objection OF Easements eoun.
Il Loe l. 4.
treason, with regard 10 which Lovat', trial
was utterly irrelevant; but the areumeu,
was that Easements actions did not consti.
tute treason within the law because the over.
acts took place in Germany
It is true that. especially in view Of N,
Lynch case, the citing Of the Lovat inst,ne,
might not have helped Easement in fact and
that the Lovat instance was not decision
at all; but the course of the government ia
electing to try Lovat by Impeachment. m
stead Of indicting him with his co-conspir,
tors. necessitates the inference that becsus,
Of the scene Of his crimes his case was re-
garded as out OF the act. II was, therefore
the part of Easements counsel TO cite n,
Lovat case; that they failed TO do so show,
that the solicitor was ill-informed and ths
The Irish X. c. argued from the brief alone.
REGINALD WRIGHT KAUFMAN.
Columbia, Penn, Nov. II, 1916.
lBurton's conjectures flor they ar
nothing more) have little bearing on tn,
issue. Mr.. Kauffman's original alega
ton was that the prosecutor in Lovat'
case admitted that it would be illegal h
indict Lovat in England for overt act
done in Scotland" If there is any evi
dence that ne made such an admission, an
that it was made with authority, the com
parison with Easement might be a it'll
more relevant But the Treason Act Of 10
provides that no crime shall be treason il
Scotland except such as is treason in Eng
land, and exception proves the rule. Their
was, therefore, no doubt as to tn
treason, the debated question being simp.
one of procedure.-ED.l