Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/459

 Rh

422

ferent stages, and it had passed them all, when it assumed the shape in which it is at present. It has been fully digested, and its principles formulated into simple rules, while the common law is yet in process of devel opment, still passing through the primary stages. CONCLUSION.

I hope that these few observations, which have been written without preparation, will assist in dispelling the misapprehension which exists in this country regarding the

criminal jurisprudence of Spanish-American nations, and in that way contribute to the better understanding between the United States and her sister Republics. A careful study of the Roman system of jurisprudence by Anglo-Saxon judges, lawyers and states men has resulted in the adoption of many features of the Roman law, and a careful and comparative study of both systems would very likely lead to a conclusion in favor of an eclectic one which would combine the best features of each.

THE RIGHT OF SANCTUARY. By George H. Westley. THE institution of sanctuary, which in various phases seems to have existed from earliest times almost down to our own century, offers to the student of ancient and mediaeval law a most interesting study. It is said that the originator of this institution was Nimrod, who, according to Scripture, was the first monarch and a " mighty hunter before the Lord." Nimrod, on the death of his eldest son, erected a golden statue of him in his palace, and ordained that criminals of all sorts, even murderers, who fled to the statue, should go free from the penalty of their crimes. We have it on more satisfactory authority, however, that the institution of sanctuary was founded by Moses, who, as every Bible reader is aware, appointed six cities of refuge whereunto the unfortunate slayer of his fellowman might flee from the. threaten ing sword of the avenger of blood. The purpose of the great lawgiver was a wise and humane one. It was by no means to subvert justice or lessen the effectiveness of the laws. The murderer was assuredly to die, but " if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him (that is smitten) into his

hand, then will I appoint a place whither he shall flee." In other words it was intended that the man who by misfortune or accident should kill his neighbor, should have a place of refuge, where he could await cool and impartial trial, secure from the vengeance of some hot-headed, unreasoning relative of the person he had slain. When the refugee entered either of the six places of safety, certain conditions were imposed upon him. One was that he must "declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city," and another, that he should not leave the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, at which time grief for the public loss was supposed to swallow up all private resentments. In due time his case came up, and he was tried according to the law laid down by Moses, the avenger of blood being his prosecutor. If the verdict was murder, the refugee was given up, even though he had clung to the sacred altar. If manslaughter, he was allowed to remain as a prisoner at large till the death of the high priest, after which he could safely return to his home and family. If, however, he ventured out