Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/406

 Twice in Jeopardy. Dove was found guilty, with a recommenda tion to mercy on the ground of his defective intellect, which was not attended to. He suffered the last penalty of the law, and as Palmer's trial forever prevented the symp toms of idiopathic or traumatic tetanus from

373

being confounded with those of strychnia poisoning, so the trial of Dove finally dissi pated the delusion that the latest and dead liest of the alkaloids defied the resources of chemical analysis.

TWICE IN JEOPARDY. By Frank B. Livingstone. HAS the Legislature of Massachusetts a right to make a law, permitting the Commonwealth or prosecution, in criminal cases, to allege exceptions and make a motion for a new trial, based upon any ma terial irregularity in the course of the pro ceedings, such as defects in summoning or impanelling the jury, the misconduct of the jury, misrulings or misdirections of the court, the discovery of new and material evidence, etc., and if the law court sustained the exceptions or motion, to have the prisoner held a second time for trial? In other words, would a law allowing a person, for some good reason or reasons, to be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense, be constitutional? My answer is, the Legisla ture has a right to make such a law, and that it would be constitutional. It is a maxim of the common la*w that "no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life or limb more than once for the same offense"; and courts of justice in Massachu setts, and in some of the other States, have recognized it, and acted upon it, without any constitutional provision. That, how ever, does not prevent the Legislature from passing a negative statute, *". e., one which would declare that the maxim has no force. The only thing that can prevent the Legisla ture from passing such a law would be a constitutional provision, and, beyond ques tion, the Constitution of Massachusetts con tains no such provision. You say " the Constitution of the United

States provides for such cases." The origi nal Constitution does not. You may go still further, and say " the first ten amend ments contain a Bill of Rights, and that a part of Article V. of said amendments reads, ' nor shall any person be subject for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb '; and the Constitution provides that 'Amendments shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified '; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares that ' the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwith standing.'" These statements are all literally correct, but the courts of last resort in most of the States have decided thatthe following amend ments, adopted at the first session of Con gress, which met in New York City, A.D. 1789, are restrictions upon the powers of the general government only, and not upon those of States. Preamble. The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and re strictive clauses should be added; and as extending the grounds of public confidence in the government will best insure the benef