Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New YorkWarburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
History
Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Warburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
Piracy -- United States; Privateering -- United States; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
"'If these rules are violated,' said Best, C.J., in the case of
_Fletcher_ vs. _Lord Sondes, 3 Bing., 580_, 'the fate of accused
persons is decided by the arbitrary discretion of Judges, and not
by the express authority of the laws. _2d Dwarris Stat., 634_.'
"By another restrictive rule of construing penal statutes, if
general words follow an enumeration of particular cases, such
general words are held to apply only to cases of the _same kind_ as
those which are expressly mentioned. By the 14 Geo. 2, C. 1,
persons who should steal sheep _or any other cattle_ were deprived
of the benefit of clergy. The stealing of any cattle, whether
commonable or not commonable, seems to be embraced by these general
words, "_any other cattle_," yet they were looked upon as too loose
to create a capital offence. By the 15 George 2, C. 34, the
Legislature declared that it was doubtful to what sorts of cattle
the former Act extended besides sheep, and enacted and declared
that the Act was made to extend to any bull, cow, ox, steer,
bullock, heifer, calf, and lamb, as well as sheep, and to no other
cattle whatsoever.
"Until the Legislature distinctly specified what cattle were meant
to be included, the Judges felt that they could not apply the
statute to any other cattle but sheep.
"The Legislature, by the last Act, says that it was not to be
extended to horses, pigs, or goats, although all these are cattle.
"3 Bingh., 581.
"2 Dwarris, Statutes, 635."
By the English law, and by the principles of general law, may it
please the Court, the offence must be clearly defined--it must be
limited, ascertained, fixed. It must be clear to the accuser. It must
be clear to the accused. It must be equally clear to the Judge. It
must leave him no discretion whereby he can enlarge or alter it. And,
may it please the Court, this is the safe and true principle of
construction--to give as little as possible to the discretion of the
Courts; for it has been well said, that the arbitrary discretion of
any man is the law of tyrants. It is always unknown; it is different
in different men; it is casual, and depends on constitution, temper,
and passion. In the best of us it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst
of us it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is
liable. It is by defining crime clearly that the citizen has his
strongest guarantee for his personal safety. Let us see the opinion of
perhaps the greatest master that ever touched the subject of
jurisprudence--I mean _Montesquieu_.
"It is determined," he says, "by the laws of China, that whoever
shows any disrespect to the Emperor is to be punished with death.
As they do not mention in what this disrespect consists, every
thing may furnish a pretext to take away a man's life, and to
exterminate any family whatsoever.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account