The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1875-05-07
is-~ w sats &s~s
.~w hsns aAAs sS#
isv~ s~ss ssts khs
Nd VA ssIi ssmss. \


aaAMsA
H#~s sls~s 49,. " s~a "a ttsAl "
Fs@. iAs r.sss 4 shs issssiti N tAlwm.
~, ! sssv~~A - ssssa ~ rAaslss
A, nssA .ss~kt~s As~ v af4~ss = !
sssrr~ 1ks shBsss " sAs s~Ar~ss
-. ~sh SsAsssaeAa. h ~ h Nsi~e
Nh sssa's NJ ssssNssial iswiss 4 w
l,satsss 4 t,slsmals, vAsss " wight
\. a~esss& m Mold y Mn ~ eAA,s.s
n hhsh srss sasiess isAisiA~ah sen-
psessA shh W. ssesss assAsssM ssa
sranAaisss t,esstnm&na u tAAs ~.
feusnass District D~,i~e shs lsu
ssssiea, NJ RssA. II ths New fssA
Trihsrs, ~hii. attending a. ~i,n<ss
'efe's Congressional Committee. ~
arrested ~ several criminal AID civil
sctiss,a. and bell " bail The sse II
The rrueeas "a the courts " aammea 1
citizen " another State So witness.
~ order 10 bring him within The jsris~
dictiou VI = cour, fr purposes IL ~.
rest ~ o'hsr eharrsa, ia prostitution
u tho judicial pfuee. which deserved
neither rcapre. nor ccuhtrnanrs. -
Whatever offence IN The WY Of libel
Mr. Dana Or Mr.. Nsid may have com.
mit.sd against persons Ii the Dh,ric,
u Columbia we're committed In Tho
State VI New York, and The law gives
10 each u The Aegrised psrsons ID,
right 10 proceed III New York agains,
them BY either civil " criminal pro.
cess. The motive for trying these
cases In tho District Of Columbia y,
that the local courts. grand juries. and
trial juriss arc oil under tho control
and influence u tho very gang u IN.
scrupulous men who pretend 10 have
been falsely libslsl.
Dana refused 20 obey tho summonl
Of tho Washington court. and wss ar.
rested under IN attachment. Upon =
habsas corpus. 10 brought The matte,
before Judge Blstchford. u tho United
States District Court Of Now York,
who, upon hearing the case. discharged
Dana from arrest,
The Affect u this decision u that lhs
Court of the District of Columbia II one
u local Jurisdiction. aud that In pro
cess II not ofaa.horisy beyond tho lin.
u Of tho District. W. suppose there
b no question - 10 The correctness oil
this decision. The Court Il Washington,
because II vas crested w ~ nel III
Congress. claims 70 10 Z national cour,
with Jurisdiction co.extenvlvs with shs
uni.sd States, Judge l,la.rhford, how.
ever. rules, that Il ID ono Of the I'm.
frtior courts" which tho constitution
authorizes. with 4 local jurisdiciion like
tho courts established In The Territori-
Al authority. This i tho second ~.
Luks the Washington City C.urt ha,
received. II tirst indicted Dana md
sent ! bench warrant 10 Now yolk fos
his arrest. but tho New York Court
discharged him. The same Court II
New York has now decided that tho 10.
cal Court Of the District II Columbia
cannot compel tho attendance u wit.
ncsssa from beyond 10 jurisdiction. :
There II > vail from the District u
Columbia. Thsy complain tina. shs
District Il reduced 10 shs level u I
State. and that IL petty losal court,
have Jurisdiction no greater than ,ha
eourts u Nsw York. Ohio. " Illinois!
Why Do not these libsled officers VI the
District g. 70 New York City. md sas
Dana for libel In The United Stated
Courts u that 6tAsci Why II II thu,
they dare not Wy their casss whore lhs
libel was published. y anywhere Saw
BY their own courts and their own ".
| ~s~.y fsAs>~~~ ns~shn~>