210 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Feb. 5,

would it be on the Cdurts of the Stat0 to say that in any case
a party had not been tried and convicted according to the
laws of the State, and the facts of his case, and that on that
ground, the Legislature ought to interfere to prevent his pun-
ichment ? If this suggestion be followed there would be no
end to controversies ; no punishment of crimes. At the time
of this conviction the procedure on motion for new trials was
regulated by the general law, ,and no appeal would lie to the
Court of Appeals. It would seem to be a strange thing for
a party, in any case, civil or criminal, to have resort to the
law-making power, when the law itself had denied him access
to a higher judicial tribunal for the correction of any sup-
posed error. It would be nothing short of a,n appeal from a
court of competent jurisdiction to anothtr department of the
government, in any plain violation of the bill of rights, which
requires the three departments to be kept separate and dis-
tinct from each other. If there are reasons for a new trial a
party has further remedy before the same Court where such
motion has been made and failed, the remedy is exhausted,
and the presumption js that the Court has done its duty,
without favor, prejudice or partiality. But even if new evi-
dence is discovered after such, proceedings or there is reason
to fear that for any cause, a party has been unjustly convicted
the Constitution provides for his safety, by application to the
Governor. The memorial informs us that these modes of relief
have been resorted to, without effect, and its scope and pur-
pose is to have the case re-opened before the Legislature, be-
cause, as alleged, there was error in his conviction—he being
innocent—that the case is a proper one for Executive clem-
ency, and that having been refused, the Legislature ought to
interfere for his relief. We cannot see in this any thing but
an application to the Legislature to revise what these depart-
ments of the government have done in the exercise of their
constitutional functions ; to interfere with which would vio-
late the organic law.

The several articles of the bill of rights referred to in argu-
ment we consider as having no application to a case where
the matter has been passed upon and final judgment entered
by competent judicial tribunals. The reasoning of the Court
of Appeals in Dorsey's case applies with great force, and we
consider decisive on the point now under consideration. The
power to suspend the execution of laws referred to in the
ninth Article of the bill of rights, in our judgment, does not
admit of the construction placed upon it by the memorialist.
We do not perceive how tl^at power can be exercised in a
criminal case after conviction, without interfering with the
right of the Governor to grant reprieves and pardons. If
the suspension declared by the General Assembly should be
without limit, the party might practically escape the execu-