National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-10-28
WHO WILL SERVE THE WARRANTS Pr
a Difference Of Opinion Between Judge sne
and ATTORNEY Cook.

a Difference Of Opinion Between Judge Smell
and Attorney Cook.
Judge Smell, it will be remembered, on the 9th
instant issued the following order:
sit Is ordered that hereafter, In all cases within
the original and exclusive Jurisdiction of this
court-that is to say, in all simple assaults and
batteries, and all other mlsdemeanors not pun
ishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, and
in all otensss against the laws and ordinances Of
the District in force therein-process shall be d.
rected to the major Of the police; but in cases
cognizable In the Supreme Court process shall be
directed to the marshal, except in cases Of emer-
gency, when 1t may be directed to the major Of
police"
Major Richards, superintendent Of police, sub
sequently requested an opinion from Mr. VIM. A.
Cook, attorney for the Board of Police on the fol-
lowing questions:
i. Can a police oficer Justify an arrest made
under a warrant issued TO the marshal Of the
United States in this District? and, 2 Can pro-
any United States cases TO the major of police and
be properly served by him except in cases OF
emergency ?"
tions in the negative, saying /. No one except
the officer to whom warrant is addressed, or who
may be properly deputized to act in place of such
IT. There is therefore no authority Of law for the
service Of q warrant addressed to the marshal by
police officer. Such service would be illegal and
action for damages. 2. Sections 1855 and 1866 of
the Revised Code relates to the service Of process
issued in the Police Court The hrst of these sec
lions plainly provides that In cases arising out of
violations Of the ordinances or laws of the District
process shall be directed to the major of police.
This is the only provision that authorizes process
to be issued to that officer exceptin United States
cases of emergency" Hence in cases Of otfenses
against the United States no authority Whatever
exists to issue process to the major of police"
and when an act of Congress desigRates the class
of cases in which process may be issued to par
ticular officer 1t is not competent for any court by
its order to confer the power. The Lawmakers
having withheld 1t, no other body can confer it.
In various parts of the act In relation to the Po
lice Court the distinction between the duties of
the District officers proper and those OF the Uni
ted States are clearly indicated. In section 1919
the Jurisdiction Of the court is declared in refer
ence to against the United States and against
the Districts in sections 1859 and 101 the distlnc
tion is maintained by requiring the prosecution of
offenses against the United States to be conduct
ed by the United States attorney or some of his
assistants and prosecution Of ofenses against the
District by its attorney assistants, and the dis
tincton is continued In 1919, which provides that
fines and penalties shall be collected by the mar
shall or major OF police, as the case may be. Con-
Rress has fit to create these distinctions, and
they should be strictly observed. No one is justi-
fed in disregarding them.