Summary

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar United States v. Reisinger — Opinion of the Court

I think, therefore, that this word 'liability' is intended to cover every form of punishment to which a man subjects himself by violating the common laws of the country. Besides, as my Brother TREAT reminds me, the word 'prosecution' is used in this section, and that usually denotes a criminal proceeding.' For the reasons we have given, the question presented by the certificate is answered in the affirmative.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar United States v. Reisinger — Opinion of the Court

It is conceded that, under the general principles of the common law, the repeal of a penal statute operates as a remission of all penalties for violations of it committed before its repeal, and a release from prosecution therefor after said repeal, unless there be either a clause in the repealing statute, or a provision of some other statute expressly authorizing such prosecution.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar United States v. Reisinger — Opinion of the Court

St., to extend this provision to the repeal of any statute not embraced in such revision. The views we have expressed find support in the case of U.S. v. Ulrici, 3 Dill. 532, which was an indictment for conspiring to defraud the government of internal revenue taxes. It became necessary there to determine the meaning of the words 'penalty,' 'forfeiture,' 'liability,' and prosecution,' in section 13 of the Revised Statutes.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature