The Evening critic., 1881-10-01
The euitcau Case Again.
To The Editor of The Erening Critic.

taKcn 10 CrltlclSc MT. hODlnSOnS summary
of the law in the Guiteau case, published re-
Gently in your valuable paper. But a short
consideration of the Republican article by
lawyer will detect most remarkable mis-
conception of law, one more remarkable
than that which as" would impute TO the
gentleman whose careful research has fur.
nished thus far the best review of law
and principles applicable to the approaching
trial. This writer starts out with the propo-
sition that Mr.. Robinson might be correct
were the crime one against the United
States and cognizable under the Federal
Statutes, which he declares, with great posi-
tivencss, does not appear to be so. He says
that by law the United States is given cog.
nizance of the crime Of murder when COM
mitted on the high seas or in "any fort,
arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any
place or district of country under the OK
elusive jurisdiction Of the United States"
but that President Garfield was
not murdered in any one Of the
places indicated within the meaning and in
tent Of the law quoted. This Is, indeed,
q strange misconccption of the law by one
who Is so positive of the misconcepti0n of
tho law in others. He appears to have
looked through the statutes and he finds
nothing, he says, that gives the United
States exclusive jurisdiction, and also
through the Constitution, and he is positive
that Article l., section 8, only gives exclu-
sive legislation, not jurisdiction; and in
this conclusion formed from this limited ex-
animation, he is undoubtedly correct. He
should not have confined his investigation
to the statutes nor to the Constitution. If
he had looked further into those two great
bodies Of law, he would have found that
neither gives the United States exclusive
jurisdiction over any place, either fort,
arsenel, territory, or what not. Where,
thcn, does the United States obtain exclu-
sive Jurisdiction over fort, arsenal, &c.,
By the ownership of the property +? Not at
all. By having exclusive legislation over
it? By no means. But by the cession of
such jurisdiction over the soil
How did the United States obtain
jurisdiction over Fortress Monroe or
in the arsenal at Springfield? Only by the
cession of Jurisdiction by the States of Vir-
ginia and Massachusetts, respectively. How
then does the United States acquire juris-
diction over the District of Columbia? Not
by the Constitution of the United States
nor by the Federal Statutes, but simply by
an act of cession of the Legislature of Mary
land, acts 1871, oh. As, sec. 9, reading as fol-
lows: All that part of the said territory
called Columbia, which lies within the linn
its of this State, shall be, and the same is
hereby, acknowledged to be forever coded
and relinquished to the Congress and Gov
eminent of the United States in full and
absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction as
we'll of soil as of persons residing or to re-
side therein. 1t will seem, therefore,
that the District of Columbia is one of the
places contemplated in sec. $3.50 of the Re-
viscd Statutes which 49," on his hypothe-
sis rules as inapplicable to the Guiteau
case.
That section reads: Every person who
commits murder within any fort, arsenal,
dOck-yard magazine or in any other place
or district of country under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States" I"
shall suffer death" % y
In the Crimes Act relating to the District
of Columbia there is no such offensc as
murder specifically mentioned, although
other high crimes of q less grade are speci-
fled and their punishment prescribed. For
other fel0nies, ETC., not provided for in the
title relating to that District, the punish
ment is declared therein to be in accordance
with the laws in force in the District. The
law so in force in regard to the punish.
ment of murder is no other than the one
just before cited from section $3.50 of the
Revised Statutes, relating to places under
exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court Of the District of
Columbia as Mr.. Robinson truly remarks,
has all the powers of and exercises the
same jurisdiction as the circuit courts.
Section 76O, Revised Statutes District Of
Columbia.) These circuit courts have cog
nizance, exclusive or concurrent, of all
crimes and offenses cognizable under the
authority of the United States" We have
shown that the crime of murder committed
in the District of Columbia is cognizable un.
der the authority of the United States, that
authority being derived from the fact of ex-
elusive jurisdiction as in the case Of a crime
committed in q fort, arsenal, etc. And we
must here differ totally with 49," in his
declaration that the cases of Stone and other
murderers were not tried in accordance with
this theory. .f.
By 10 Statutes, page 253, section 1853 of the
Revised Statutes relating to the District OF
of that section the following: "Said courts
1.-THE Supreme and District) shall have cog.
nizance of all crimes, ETC., committed within
said District "and any one of the
justices may hold Criminal Court for the
trial of all crimes and Offenses arising within
the District. So that there is no Criminal
Court 90 nomine,as rs" contends, but provis-
ion is made merely that one of the Justices
shall hold court for the trial of criminal
cases. In fact the court so held is u branch
of the Supreme Court. (See U. s. VS.. Wood
! Macarthur PAL; also, act June 90, 1874,
sup. to r. s., p. 92.) If there is District
Criminal Court,as 49, contends, and which
he thinks makes all the differ
ence in Mr.. Robinson's line Of argument
will he tell us where it gets jurisdiction tc
try murder cases, except as it is in reality
the Supreme Court or an integral part o.
that tribunal, when the statute before
quoted plainly says that the Circuit Court!
| of the United States shall have exclusive
cognizance of all crimes and offenses cogniz-
able under authority of the United States
and further statute, also quoted, declares
that the Supreme Court of the District o.
Columbia-not the Criminal Court-shal
possess the same powers and exercise the
same jurisdiction as the Circuit Courts Of
the United States.
1t seems to me that as" has woefully
misapprehended the law as to both of hi
propositions. And not only this, his con
clusion Is inconsistent with his premises
for, If there is no exclusive jurisdiction o
the United States over the District of Co
lumbia, then there is no statute provision
for the trial of murder therein. Therefore
in his very laudable expression of desir
that Guiteau shall be tried, convicted ant
hung in this District for the most diabolica
crime of the age, he urges, from his owl
standpoint, the commission of judicia
murder. But he is wrong in his premise
but right in his conclusion, for the Dstric
| IF rnItt ala L.. =. r.