Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-07-16


LETTER OF ASSISTANT pIsrRrcr ArroRSKY
HARRINGTON TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY BLISS.
Assistant District Attorney Harrington has
written letter to District Attorney Bliss, Of
New York, explaining and defending the posi-
ton taken by the United States authorities
here in regard to the judicial questions involved
R to Ts
libel. Mr.. Harrington refutcs by argument
and by legal presidents and authorities the
assertion n Of Dana,s counsel that libel in the
offence; that the Police Court Of this District
has no jurisdiction; and that person charged
with crime in one district cannot be arrested
another, and held to answer before the court
having jurisdiction OF the offense.
After showing conclusively that Congress ex-
erclses exclusive jurisdiction over the District
courts of the United States; and that all offenses
committed in this District are offenses against,
and prosecuted by, the United States by virtue
of the common law received through the state
of Maryland, Mr.. Harrington takes up the ques-
ton Of the jurisdiction of the Police Court and
proves, by acts Of Congress in relation thereto,
that II has ori9isdl and eScisstve jurisdiction of
all offenses against the United States commit
ted in the District of Columbia not deemed CAP
ital or otherwise infamous crimes; that is to
say, of all simple assaults and batteries, and
all other misdemeanors not punishable by i'm
prisonment in the penitentiary." Libel is a
misdemeanor punishable in this District by
fine or imprisonment in the common jail, and
therefore cognizable only in the Police Court.
In regard to the mode and power of arrest,
Mr. Harrington says that by the thirty third
1885, it is enacted "that for any offense against
the United States the offender may, by any
Justice or Judge of the United states, or by any
justice of the peace or other magistrate of any
of the United States where he may be found,
agreeably to the usual mode of process against
offenders in such state, and at the expense of
the United States, be arrested and imprisoned,
or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before
such court as by this act has cognizance of the
offense." He says there can remain but one
question, and that is whether the words, q" be-
fore such court of the United States as by this
act has cogDizance of the offense )" restricts the
general words in which the power to arrest is
given, and confines it only to cases that are
cognizable in the particular courts enumerated
in the act of September q 1889. II there are
any doubts upon the construction of the statute,
ne h, thinks they would be removed by the very
eral fancy, in which he says: :" / cannot think
that there is any foundation for the doubt
which has been suggested: The power TO arrest
for any otfense against the United States is
given in general terms, and the words which
have occasiOned this doubt are not words of
restriction upon preceding words, and are OBJ
viously not SO intended. An
offense against the United States committed in
this District is an offense against the same
sovereignty as if committed in one of the
Mr.. Harrington says it has been the uniform
and constant practice to extradte persons
charged with offenses against the United States
courts created after the passage of the act of
1883; and gives number of instances, among
them the following:-The circuit court of Vir-
ginia took a recoenizance of Aaron Burr to ap-
pear and answer in Ohio for a misdemeanor al
legged to have been committed there. The circuit
court of the District of Columbia committed
Erick Bollman, charged with an offense which
the court could not try. This case was after
ward heard by the supreme court of the United
States. and the power of the court to commit in
case of an otfense against the United States
does not appear to have been doubted. Tobias
Watkins was arrested in Pennsylvania in 1899
for a misdemeanor at common law committed
in the District of Columbia.
He concludes by calling the attention of Dis
trict Attorney Bliss to the act Of Congress Of
Feb. Is, 1865, concerning prosecutions for Ii
bells in the District of Columbia, which permits
defendant under the general issue to give in
the truth as justification Of the alleged libel
or to show that the matter charged as Hbelous
was published with good motives and for JUS
tifable ends. He concludes as follows :-"Cer-
tainly, under this statute, the defendant will
have the amplest Opportunity for q fair trial
and to make good his allegations. This foolish
clamor by Mr.. Dana's counsel about the courts
of the District, it seems to me, reflects more
upon the gentleman INDUCING therein than
upon the dignity and judicial fairness of our
Judges, who at least receive the respect and CON