Daily globe., 1879-05-25
sTLLLArIT.
County Attorney Rogers Argues for the
Eitse Conviction of the Social Evil.

County Attorney, Rogers Argues for the
Conviction Of the Social Evil.
The social evil had another airing in the
district court, yesterday, before fair
audience, in numbers. Yesterday was the
designated time to hear the argument on
thespecial pleas to the indictments against
Mary J.. France ct al. and the demurrer
thereto.
At the opening Of the court it was ap-
parent, without two looks to see it, that
Mr.. w. w. Erwin, counsel for the de-
PENDANTS, was absent. This apparent fact
was announced by Mr.. j. D. O'Brien in be-
half of defendants France and Oleson.
Mr.. Rogers, county attorney, expressed his
readiness to proceed, but remarked that
likely Mr.. Erwin would return on the 1890
o'clock train, and the argument could be
heard ut that hour. Y
The court thought so, too, and adjourned
until that hour. sd
At IL o'clock Mr.. Erwin was still absent.
Yhe court broadly intimated his indispo
,sition to tolerate, any further delay, He had
the defendants called out, and gave word for
the proceedings to begin.
At this juncture Mr.. O'Brien again inter-
pOS6U I'LL OUJ6CGlOus LILO 0tctCu tAhV A4O 0H. |
peared for defendants France and Oleson,
but only in the capacity to ask a continuance,
owing to the absence Of their attorney, Mr..
Erwin. He, Mr.. O'Brien, was wholly unpre-
pared to fill Mr.. Erwin's place, and defend
ants were practically without counsel.
COUNTY ATTORNEY ROGERS ARGUMENT.
The court determined to hear the county
attorneys argument, and signiied to Mr.
Rogers to proceed.
Mr.. Rogers began his remarks by express
ing his regrets at the absence of Mr.. Erwin, 4
but he could be heard subsequently. Mr..
Rogers then addressed himself to answer the
special pleas interposed by defendants.
In answer to the first plea,
that by Legislative enactment author
| ity to control houses of ill-fame
was delegated to the city and duly assumed
by ordinances passed by the council, Mr..
Rogers held :hat it was not good plea of
autrefois lacqust or autrsfois c0nviet any
action under these ordinances against de-
PENDANTS as recited in the plea. He contend!
ed that the indictments as found specified q
definite offense, not particularly committed
|sagainst the people of st. Paul, but against
the commonwealth at large. As to the law
involved in the special pleas, Mr.. Rogers
held that in principle they were not tenable.
He recited from the books the case of Hen
rietta Charles, and contended that the same
principles in that case obtained in the one
at issue. The supreme court held in that
case that the special legislation giving
to st. Paul the power to
suppress the social evil was
not the intention to express that the crime
; or sin was not felony in the city of st.
Paul, the State statue defining it as such.
: In other words, by the special enactment il
was not the intention to confer upon the
city of st. Paul the exclusive right to legis-
late upon this question to the exclusion Of
State laws or to confer exclusive jurisdic
!. ton in the city courts in passing
3 upon such cases. He held that the inter
I pretation of the supreme courts decision
9 was that the city of st. Paul and the Stat
!, had concurrment jurisdiction in these cases
cipal authorities had control only SO far a
: the city was concerned, but did not empow.
: er the city to exercise any authority for tn
s county of Ramsey OF this State the laws Q
:. the State hold they ofense felony agains
v the commonwealth at large. Mr.. Roger.
- illustrated this point by presenting in analo
: gy the exercise of State and federal authori
y ty, and sustained his views by frequen
= ! reference to the books. Under this repre-
sentation of the case counsel held that tn
q State had control and could exercise juris
y diction in these particular cases, notwith
y standing the limited action of st. Paul il
% the cases, circumscribed and confined b
= law as it was to certain penalties in fines o
limited imprisonment. Referring again t
Y. the Henrietta Charles case, counsel recite
from the decision in that case to show tbs
~ the imposition of fines previously upon dc
~ fendant could not be held as plea 9
70 Uutref0is c0nUict of the ofense charged. I
= substance counsel contended that the la
authorities held that the ofense in questio
ut was au'act against the State, and as such ws
q punishable under the State laws, irrespecti,
h. of the jurisdiction enjoyed to limited exte,
,;s by municipalities, which authority was spe'
40 tally confirmed by the very law which hi
e- been outraged in these cases. In 9TH
les words, it was held that the crime was an o
NO. 10 fense against two jurisdictions, and that
.it the Indictment and trial of defendants,
II was not trial for the same offense in Il
~ law. The city prescribed the penalty und
ol its Jurisdiction, and the State had made pr
'u' vision for the maintenance of its dignity al
no y peace against such class of offender
ne This view in the law was as extensive
lgs the practice itself, and obtained in all t
49, States by decisions of the highest court
~, Counsel then cited numerous authorities
.. confirmation. In summary counsel held t
eeu zee. pleas were not good in law, not setting Q
4ce ~ definitely the plea of autrafoSs conuSct
~, dcquSt, the offense charged, being CARR
wy forward to the 18th of May, while the pls
eie only make reference to period of time er
Wn ing the 10Th of April. That the plea IL
an the State conferred exclusive jurisdicti
~: ~ upon the city was untenable, as set fol
4 slrl IT
20 action of the municipal court of st. Paul,
u oe alleged, only made the people OF the city
Of party to this case adjudlcated, and did ]
IS involve the people Of Ramsey county, or
10 State. The courts held that any convict
D1s under the city's jurisdiction did not bar
ecA eea State from interposing its power for
nle: preservation of the public morals
geo view of this counsel held t
= nis defendants were rightly and legally at the
:. :. [.of Justice to make plea, other than such
uee interposed, against duly and legally for
70 indictment for the violation of the 81
t'ea law. The clear weight of principle and
% thority sustained this position of the st
ay. The court then adjourned until Mono
.I .ne but not before Mr.. O'Brien asked that.
,Ie court designate time to hear Mr.. Ery
;l.s m.s The court set Tuesday afternoon, a
oint d ~ I & Is. - % 81 n & 9ist
Vt in ii 8 70 River Notes. aftt
ctim rh.~s ,,., .,,e,, :, +,,e -;.,a~ ,,os.o-aa
ned a1j. one inch, glving four feet eleven inche
1son 1sep the board, and good six feet in the char
able. The long Annie Of the K. N. line ws
over last night with heavy, freight trip, and
'um- at an early hour this morning. The
,ople nacket Red Wing. Cant. Hioht. IF the :
and iine will ha in Monday inooorn;no a. Loo,
itted 10 noon the sa,ne fIav' . ~ q
1.-THE =. -. ---.l.L -.
0rsa- ss5szq u.ox..,,.,4S.. - & ME. e,.,, &