National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-23

mon, or Its ofacers, without tho Intervention or
He saws: at has never yet been finally
put In operation by tho positive authority
Of Congress- under the National Government, in
mere cases Of misdemeanors, though common
enough in civil prosecutions. STORY on the
Oonsf.. vol = PIP. ssS, $40; Blackstone vol. Z PIP.
II we turn to the act of Congress establishing a
Police Court, approved June II, 1870, in section
three we find that Congress has formally reoog-
its positive authority for the prosecution Of
tain classes Of offences, by providing that prose-
ton under oath, without Indictment by grand or
trial BY petit Jury; but any party deeming MN.
self aggrieved by the Judgment Of said court may
the Supreme Court Of the District Of Columbia,
and In such case the appeal shall be trled on ne
informs alton filed in the court below, oertihed 70
t1srsst as though the ease had arisen therein"
(See also section IL. same aot.l -
To what class of cases has this ommonlaM
procedure been applied! If We look at the nret
section on the same act We ind that II provides,
THAT there shall be established In the District
Of Columbia court TO % Salied me rouge 9oar.
original and exclusive jurisdiction Of all offences
against the United States committed IN the Dis
trlct Of OolumDia. not deemed csPitsi Of GsneL.
assaults and batteries, and all other mlsdemean-
ors not punishable BY Imprisonment In the peni-
ordinances, 7" &c Il is to be o6ssrvsd-
l. That capital or otherwise infamous crimes are
excluded from the jurisdiction Of this court.
2 That all misdemssnors punishable In the
s. II Is manifest that the Glasses Of crime ex.
cudsd are the only ones referred to In article Of
Thil rs not only literally true but Is the essence
Of judicial determination. It will follow that q
prosecution for libel must be either IN Infamous
tensissy or Il viii Be- Clearly Within the jarsdIc
ton OF the Police Court. 1t has never been pre-.
tended either in this country or II England that
libsls Msr. infamous crimes IA HAWKINS vol
AT common iaW iibels wers punishable by Q
ans or imprisonment or both, and the usual pro
cess was by Information without the Intervention
OF g grand jury. (Rex vs.. Wilkes, BurroWs
This plea to the jurisdiction Of the Police court
the ooSsstut0n unless upon one remaining
Il is provided by article XII Of the amendments
to the Constitution, that in all criminal prosecu
lions the accused shall enjoy the right Of speedy
and public trial by an impartial jury" We have
already seen that this section is to be construed
IN the light Of the common law, and that
large class Of offences covered by the police reg
ulations and the laws of the State not
BY It; and the question presents itself, has Con
Eress by prescribing mode Of trial known TO the
common law for an offence indictablo and triable
by justices Of the peace in England, in which Il
carefully preserved to the defendant an unqualt
fed and unfettered right Of appeal to q tribunal
where his rights can be passed upon by jury
deprived him Of any constitutional right? Has II
transcribed its powers under the lItn clause I o.
erci Of its exclusive right Of Legislation for the
| District Of Columbiaf We submit that the plain
and logical conclusion to Be drawn from the e. !.
this: that, provided the right Of trial by jury ID
secured to the defendant as 1t is In this act Con
gress is the sole and exclusive aroter OF the mode
in which 1t is to be reached. Having exer
csed their discretion in the premises and pro
vided q plain. clear, an inexpensive mode
seeming Jury sFs Gy an aRPsSai az iT ON
defendant are fully recognized and protected, and
this court will be slow to rescind set aside the
solemn determinations Of the great law makert
This question first came before the Supreme
Court Of Massachusetts,, 10 the case Of Sullivan
VS.. Adams, Gray, 47s, and Chief Justice Shaw
then said:
alt has always been hold that IL there 10 an IN;
obstructed and unclogged right OF appeal to Q
court in which such trial can be obtained, thai
article Of the declaration of rights is not Infrng
upon"
And the Identical question involved in this case
was subsequently, before the same court IN Jonei
vs.. Robbins, Gray, $50, arising out Of the con
struction Of the law creating the Police Court o.
Boston. In his very elaborate and exhaustive
opinion, Chief Justice Shaw, giving the decision
THAT a statute which authorizes . single
magistrate to try and pass Judgment In . crimi
Of
jury the appellate court, subject only to the re
quirements Of giving bail for his appearance, oil
in default Of such bail being committed to jail II
not unconstitutional, a. impalring the right o.
trial by jury"
In support of this opinion the learned ohIs
Murphy VS.. People. 2 Conn, SIS, $40. Beers vs.
Beers, Conn, SIS; Sullivan vs.. Adams, Gray
al. See also United States vs.. Charles Gross
Law Reporter, April q, 1874, y. J. Cartier.
An examination Of these cases seems to show
most satisfactorily that upon principle and
authority, the Police Court has Jurisdiction Of 6
criminal prosecution for libel.
Can It be commended that the statute organ
IIing the Police Court is unconstitutional be
cause 1t provides that the judge Of said court
shall be appointed for six years. instead of during
Congress has uniformly exercised the right Of
exclusive legislation over the Territories OF the
for four years notwithstanding section one article
three, Of the Constitution. This section Of the
Constitution has universally been construed Il
apply to the courts Of the United States in theiI
relation to the States Of the Union, and not ap
Plicabie to TerritOries-G Jorti0ri to to the Dis
trlct Of Columbia.
"As the General Government possesses the
right to acquire territory, either BY conquest OF
seem to follow, an Inevitable consequence, that
IL possesses the power to govern what It has SO ac
CURED. The territory does not, when 80 acquired
subjsct to the Jurisdiction of any State. It must
consequently, be under the dominion and iurisdic-
tion Of the Union, or It would be without any gov
eminent at all" (See also section 1921
In the case Of Stacy vs.. Abbott, It was held
'that the Territories are not organized under the
Constitution, nor do they derive their Legislative
or Judicial power thersfrou; they are exclusively
the creatures Of Congress-"
The District Of Columbia was acquired aftei
the adoption Of the Constitution; but the power
Of Congress over II is expressly conferred by the
18th and 18th clauses Of sec. 8, art. !.
The case was not concluded, and the argument
will be continued to-day.