Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-11-11
THE SOCIAL EVIL.
The Supreme Court Trying Whack at
this KnQttY Question.

this knOttv Question.
Whether or not tho municipal or State au-
thorities, or both. shall exercise tho right to
regulate the moral leprosy known as the social
evil vice, 10 . question which was argued at
length in tho supreme court of this State yes
terday morning. The public is familiar with
| tho status of the case, and the System of i'm
posing monthly fines against the keepers of
houses Of ill fame by tho police authorities, a.
! penalty for conducting their nefarious traffic
| in this city and their. subsequent indictments
and appearance at the bar. of the district court
are matters of recent public record.
indicted parties certified the cases of Annie
Oleson and Pauline Bell to the supreme court
for the purpose of testing the legality of the
proceedings by the grand jury and district
court, after the defendants had complied with
the regulations of the police authorities and
day morning before the full bench, Judges
Gilfllan. Berry and Cornell presiding. Nh.
Henry F. Masterson appeared for tho defend
ants, and Mr.. E. G.. Rogers represented the
State, appearing in behalf of States Attorney
Wilson and w. Olough, counsel for the society
for the suppression of vice, both gentlemen
being absent from the oity.
Mr.. Rogers spoke At length, the points of his
argument being;
Thatx the municipal court of the city of
st. Paul did not have exclusive Jurisdiction of
the oftense of keeping houses of i'll fame, aud
| although the city council of St. Paul had the
| right to pass and enforce ordinances in rela-
| ton to houses of ill fame, tho stste had the
| right, also, to prosecute for infraction of its
| laws. That the charter and ordin-
ances OF the city and the statutory provision
| were the same now as they were when the de-
| cision of the State Va. Henrietta Charles was
| announced. State VI. Charles, 16 Mimi, 474.
| That a1thOn0h oNnatStnfiOu arficlo 1
| section z. provides that mo person for the
same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of
punishment" thet the infraction of the ordi.
nance of the municipality of Saint Paul
| is not the same offense az the
| violation of the statutes oflthe State. although
the act might be the same.
Mr.. Rogers osntended that it could not be
the same offense because tho violation of the
ordinance was . simple misdemeanor, while
the violation of the statute of tho State was a
! felony.
That person might be punished twice for
| the laws of different jurisdictions. For in
| stance, an act might be in violation of the
laws of the United States and of State in
which case the offender might be called to an
| swer by the State and by the United States
also.
That tho ordinance Of the CITY was mere
police regulation, and it could not be claimed
that the legislation intended to mako what was
| felony, in the State of Minnesota, outside of
Saint Paul, in Saint Paul mere nisdemeanor.
MIR. Masterson followed with an able and
| exhaustive argument for the defense. Counsel
read his points from printed brief, embody-
| ing an extensive and carefully compiled array
| of authorities, which were elaborated and ap-
piled with great force of argument and dis
elimination. In abiding to tho former pro-
ceedings, counsel said that it stood admitted,
that prior to the indictments, the defendants
had already been duly convicted of, and had
suffered punishment for, ''the same offense.
and same specific acts of offcnse, as regards all
matters and things in tho said indictment
charged" The court by whose judgment they
were convicted and punished, the municipal
court of the city of st. Paul, is court of rec
ord, having clerk, seal, juries, and the pro-
cess and attributes of judicial courts. 1t was
created and exercises its Jurisdiction under
authority of the last clause Of section l, article
6, of the constitution.
The second point was elaborated from the
standpoint that Tin any view of the case the
trial and punishment, under the charter and
ordinance is = bar to another trial aud punish
| ment by any jurisdiction bound by the consti-
tuition of Minnesota, for the same offense and
same specific acts of offense as regards all mat
| tiers and things" Upon tho conclusion OF
| councils argument the decision was taken un-
| der advisement.