Show LAV LAT AND LOGIC arguments Arga ments in the case of Lore fiorenzo li orenzo llizo snow BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME M COURT lucid statement of the issues involved by V F S richards MAURY UPPER ind ANU milli MILL STOKES pointed abd remarks by b y geo r curtic IT 1001 LOOS AS IP IF THE COURT WERE CONVERTED special correspondence the arguments in the suo habeas corpus case began before the supreme court of the united states on I 1 thursday hurs january it lacked but tiala an hour of 4 p m the time at which the court closes each day when F S richards who made rila dethe the opening arguments gu ments began his remarks after stating the case as disclosed by the re record corf i he called the attention of th the court to the fact that the case involved two distinct propositions on either ei ther or both of which they relied for a favorable decision from the court THE FIRST and the least important was that the judgment was void bold because of its uncertainty on this point mr richards occupied the time until the court adjourned his contention was wa B that a judicial sentence must always wa a impose a definite le punishment and ang in view of the existence of a legislative statute which allowed prisoners a remission of the number of days confinement when their behavior entitled them to it and as the judge in ue sentences made no allowance for such stich a contingency but had bad ordered that the prisoner be held until all three sentences had been satisfied to the full extent allowed by the law independent of the be statutory provision or if allowance could be made for good behavior no provision was made for it in ia the sentence therefore it was uncertain and being uncertain it was void tn in answer to a question mr richards stated that they would be safe in relying on an either point alone but did not chouse choose to rest upon both THE SECOND POINT was that three sentences were sought to be imposed upon on the prisoner fors for a single offense the record and the indictments taken as presented by the grand jury alio showed wed that the offense of unlawful cohabitation hid had been maintained continuously and uninterruptedly from the 1st ast day of january 1883 until the ast 1st day of decembly 1885 the indictments while they separated this period in the th first place into two distinct years and in the second to eleven months nevertheless coveted the whole period within av 1 thin the years and months named without omitting a single day The point 1 1 int 1 1 sought to be established by mr va richards 1 1 ards wa that there could be but one offense for the period teamed hamed lie he cited a number ot ol english and american cases and had still others on his bis brief which time did not allow hll ht 0 bring orally before the court a I 1 of which bore with singular analogy on the case under consideration in one case it was held tatt the taking of coal from day ti day for fer a period covering cover Lug four years om in a coal aidt in which some 40 p persons erious were interested was BUT ONE for the reason that there had bad been no cessation and the taking while felonious was in all respects continuous in another case base a man had bad attached a fraudulent pipe to a gas main from which for a protracted period gas hald been drawn luring during the day and turned off at night and which had been consumed without passing through a gas meter yet it was held to be only one offense fease of in the case of drawing wine frum from a vat at different periods by a fraudulent tube the act was held to be continuous as also in the case of killing a num number bet of horses in one day and of selling different loaves of bread all were held to be continuous and being continuous wet e therefore but one offense the judge in one case reasoned that it was as just to hold that every stitch taken by a tailor on the lords ilay constituted a new and distinct offense as to hold bold that an act continuous in its nature be segregated segre grated other cases were cited to show that where illegal fares had bad been collected by a public carrying com pany pan punishment could not legally be in imposed ased lor every taking but that the indictment could cover all the round ground of illegal actions in one cony con bious us direction either for the WHOLE PERIOD or any part thereof until the finding of the indictment the same rule held good in the case where a pilot had bad been employed against the regulations provided and an endeavor had bad been made to inflict punishment for every vessel or boat on which he had been employed but the decision of the court was that there was hut but one offense and the prosecution could only so proceed until the practice had bad been interrupted by the interference of the state so with regard to the cohabitation of the prisoner there was no evidence to show that the cohabitation on which tee he was convicted had been interrupted to la any manner whatever from the day of january 1883 to the day 01 ol of december 1885 either by act on the part of the prisoner or by any interference of an external or ligal imal nature the prosecution ifould not sit alt idly by for years ind and then swoop down upon the unsuspecting citizen and pire on indictments by a process of segregation which if tolerated I 1 could be made to place him in prison jor for life and absorb a fabulous sum in fines there must be an interruption in the relationship tion ship of cohabitation as construed by the courts a clear cut palpable interruption ter before it was possible that two indictments or three could be found at ond onetime time for a past offense e As this act beyond all doubt and according to t the h e wor wording din and the dates of odthe the very indictment Indict indictments melt was continuous it il was BUT ONE OFFENSE being one loff ense the judgment so 90 far as it concerned the second and third penalties was void for the reason that it inflicted three penalties for s single offense the statute limited the infliction of punishment on the offense charged to six months im prison meat and fine yet the court nad bad sought to impose 18 months imprisonment P and VW ekx flue fine for an offense w which the law explicitly provided could not bring upon the prisoner more than one third either of the measure afim or the amount of the flue fine mr richards called the courts court lis attention to the statement of the supreme C court ourt of utah in the snow decision that they have only found one case sustaining the degreg segregation theory he then reviewed that case which was decided by the supreme court of massachusetts and clearly showed that it was wholly inapplicable to the case at bar and that when tested by theralen the rules rales of law applicable to sucu cases in massachusetts it did not sustain the prosecutions theory mr richards waa as continually interrupted by interrogations from the coor tr an evidence always of lin interest litterest terest in a case on the part of tile the bench and among others were T THE H E FOLLOWING chief justice suppose that in these three sentences included in one there bad been a separate sentence in form upon III pon each one of these indictments would you then claim you could take advantage of this question mr richards yes because even theu then three penalties would be imposed lor for one single offense justice gray what would you say it if the man is indicted for this offense and at the date of the indictment is not arrested or imprisoned and at the next term of the court a month later he is indicted again mr R we say that would be entirely competent our contention is that so long as the act of the part parties lea remains remal ns unbroken so long as it remains wi without ta any interruption or prosecution on the part of the government so long it is but one continuous offense offe nae justice harlan harian was not that question raised on the trial of ine second seeped or third case mr B R yes by the plea of former conviction the chief justice was not that the question you yoa sought to review here on writ of error the last time mi H R that was one question we nougat so igat on that writ of error to review all the errors that the court had com buethe but the main purpose arp 0 e if your bon r will remember athe the re real pi point at i we were seeking on the last writ of error was to get a definition of that WONDERFUL WORD that we cannot find outtie meaning of we wanted to know something more about what co cohabit babit meant this was the real purpose of thia the last case cage justice blatchford Blatch tord there is a fui izaer question whether that can be reviewed not having been called calle d up in toe trial mr R we are not here asking a review of the decision of the lower court on the plea of former conviction we are here claiming before this cour court t that after having passed one cue judg ment the court exhausted its ito jurisdiction we are not dot asking for any review yiew upon the plea of former calvic tion don I 1 I 1 justice miller you do so BO go upon the ground of its being error alone alon elut but upon the ground that the th second and third judgments judge ments were vold void mr R absolutely void the chief justice suppose there had been separate J judgment sin an each i case and in the second case tried you had plead a former conviction would i you ask this court to release him on a writ of habeas corpus oi of must mast you not have it determined on writ of error whether that would lee ke proper mr R I 1 can only answer in this way I 1 am not sure that I 1 fully under stand yu you I 1 understand this court to have said in the lange case and in other cases of this class that no man can ban be twice punished for the i 0 jakc SAME OFFENSE it can make no Olf difference terence whether two judgments are rn dered in the same case for the same offense or whether they be imposed in two dif ferent cases esses for the same offense whenever it appears to this thia court that two or more penalties have been imposed for the same offense then the case comes within the jurisdiction of this court on habeas corpus as is distinctly shown by the tol following lowing language of the court delivered in the lange lanee case it if there is anything settled in the jurisprudence j uris prudence of england and america I 1 it is that no raan man can twice receive punishment for the same offense at the conclusion of mr richards argument assistant united states attorney general WILLIAM WILLIA 31 A MAURY began sheail speaking ng lie he held that the ease case presented two questions first therit was on a footing with the laege case referred referd ed to by mr richards in other words whether the juda judgment w m as void and second whether the second and third sentences in the case were void because of uncertainty he expressed himself as amazed at the claim of the counsel for mr S snow now that there was but one judgment the contention th that at there wan waa but one j judgment as the record would demou demonstrate had no BO warrant whatever in the case of lange there was one verdict and ad two judgments in this case howe however ver there were three dis distinct verdicts NOW it is claimed because he was sentenced ind and judgment pronounced upon these verdicts seriatim ser fadim that it was out but one act and aad that thera is no separation or division and that the whole thing must be bd taken as one act now I 1 say the case of bigelow puts an end to this plea pies bigelow was convicted by the supreme court of the district of columbia for embezzlement bezz lement he was arraigned and put pu t upon his bis trial on fourteen separate and d distinct indictments each one tor embezzlement after the trial had be gau and ordence had been introduced the court determined that there could not be a consolidation of these theae indict ments and trial upon 6 aft ALL OF THEM thereupon the case was withdrawn from the jury in the face of the objections made and lie he was put upon his trial on one indictment I 1 I 1 justice miller that is not strictly correct I 1 think mr maury the case was not withdrawn from the jury but thirteen indictments were and the trial continued on the other i mr maury he then came to this court bourt on the ground that there had bad been an infraction of a constitutional right which protected him from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same sam e offense this tb Is court sa it i t be so this court said that it would not undertake to determine that question because that was the very point that was raised in the court below and determined ter mined justice Matthe matthews waI I 1 would like to ask you a question on that point suppose that IU iu case of the three indictments laying the offense as of three successive years each indictment had laid it during daring the same period that is all three indictments had been for an offense named is as commit ted led from such a day in 1883 to a certain other dy in 1883 or an any other year so go that in the face of th the three indictments the period during which the bhe cohabitation was alleged to have bave unlawfully EXISTED was identical in point of time and that the prisoner having been found guilty on all three had been separately sentenced for three successive terms would you yon contend in that case thai aba it differed from or wa similar to this so that he could not noi be delivered from the second term of imprisonment by the ex expiration trat n odthe of the first mr maury aury 1 I contend that the same principle applies the deliver ances of the court in a number of cases are to this effect and I 1 give the words berv rythe the court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question that arises in the case and whether the decision he be correct or not its judgment until reversed is regarded as binding in every other court in other words there can be no judicial behind the judgment save by an appellate court Just justice ici miller this is the cise case of a judgment pronounced by the coort at one time in regard to the three verdicts of guilty the court in assuming to make this one judgment had before it aalthe ail the records of these three ca cases sea and it if they are here we are to be placed place in the position of that court now ow whatever the court might have done in regard to these pleadings the one being a part of the other whether that would be jurisdictional or not is not exactly the question that is before us now the question before us is the court having belore it these indictments verdicts and pleadings w which aich I 1 show that there was no tion rion of the offense ferise of of cohabitation cob a citation which thib court against my nty judgment in the cannon case held not to te mean actual connection but a living together as if they illey were man and vyine now the court hali having all these cases before it was nf it t in ba its power was it in its constitutional and legal power to impose more than ONE punishment for what had bad occurred during those two or three thre years all outside 0 of f that I 1 do not think important thatis that is the question mr maury that very issue was very pointedly raised in the second and third cases by the pada of lormer former coup con diction vic tion mr justice miller very well I 1 understand der stand that that might have erred and possibly pos finding ng that thai since then at another ag er term er sentenced him to imprisonment imprison ent again aga n it might have been mere error but the court is brought face to face with the point that here I 1 am pronouncing one obe d judg went men tand and the question As is is it one offense or is it three offenses the question on is does that go to the jurisdiction nr Pg I 1 I 1 mr maure I 1 do not understand that the court pronounced one judgment I 1 understand that it 11 pronounced three judgments ft i justice austice Tu stice miller it may go lor for what it is worth it looks to 0 me like one judgment justice |