New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-11
JUDGE COX,s DECISION.

CONS rITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO PROCEEDINGS BY
Observation-Disclosures CRIMES AS DEFINED
by STATUTE AND LEGAL DECISIONS.
WASHINGTON, Nov 10.-'rhe announcement
that the decision Of Judge Cox would be rendered this
morning Star Route had the effect OF crowd
ing the Criminal COnrt the spectators being principally
members of district bar General Brady was not pres
eut but the defendants Messs Turner and French
listened attentively to the decision The Government
was represented by Mr.. Cook, and the defendants By
Messrs shelabarger, Wilson and Tottcn. When the
court was called to order, Judge Cox rendered bis
decision.
He complimented in high terms the counsel in the
cnse upon the arguments which had been advanced by
both sides on the motion which had for some days past
been under discussion namely the motion to rescind tho
order permitting the information to be fled The ques
ton he said, Of deep interest, and had oeeu
treated with breadth OF view depth OF learning ande
force of reasoning which had never been surpassed He
would have been glad do justice TO the discussion In
the only way in which 1t could be done, by careful
revsw of all the positions maintained, but that was
task which would require much time and labor whereas
the view, which he took OF the case dispensed
with that labor and other considerations debarred him
Of the pleasure exploring the wide neId which had
been covered
Tho reasons which controlled his judgment lay within
a narrow compass. He had no doubt that an informa-
ton though in the remote past had been used a. All n
eress and the Constitution, be lawful proceeding for
the prosecution OF offences of the grade Of msdemeanor,
and not infamous The practice in the Federal courts
seemed to such proceeding AZ legal without ex-
res authority in suits affecting the public service and
such an information in the Federal courts corresponded.
in his Judgment to that class Of Information which tns
in England would file ssa spon and
would be fled in this country by the District
Attorney The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
urovied the restriction that warrants should ISSUE
exccpt upon probable supported by oath aud am
d,vit Eyeryone was satisfied that the question whether
an offence was infamous was determined at common
law by the character OF the offence, and not by the pun
ishment affixed it and he dld not think that at com
mon law conspiracy Infamous offence, unless the
object was to obstTuct corrupt the source or public
Justice He had nothing do with the popular sense
OF the term Infamous but only with the teehncat
sense as determined by the decisions or courts ana
the enactments OF statutes But Whatever Ne"s w
might entertain must be controlled by the iocai e
ton of Congress- so he felt compelled 10 avoid the a-
strctiye field of speculative for the narrower A VI
Interpreting the laws az provided Oy 'onsio''
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
Tho py,tb Amendment 10 the Constitution provided
A.. oarsor sboua be held to for capital or
,horisa Infamous crime except on presentation or
,ndict,nsnt nv Grand Jury Section lO49 OF the Re-
a statutes for the District OF Columbia deosfeo tnas
the police Court should have original ana exclusive
rsdcfion over all offences against the United states
in the District deemed capital or otherwise
intamous crimes that to say OF all simple assaults ana
hat,,,es and other misdemeanors not punishable hX
,,nnrsonmeut in the penitentiary. Those two enscH
,.n,s embraced all the offences against the United
sates that could be committed within the District and
onped the N in easses-thosc that we're capital Or
heryse inf amous and those that were not capital OF
thervise infamous The offence charged In this infor-
nation must category or the osher-it must b