Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-10-26
Tuesday,s Arg,s,nent.

WASHINGTON. oct. Z4.-Iho political as
sessment case of Newton NJ. Curtis, mo. 6
original petition for habeas corpus) was
called in the United States supreme court
at 2:30. this afternoon. The court room
was nearly deserted owing to the uncer-
tainty as to the time when the case would
be reached. Assistant Attorney General
Smith, of counsel for the petitioner, open
ed the argument with a brief recital of the
facts upon which the petition for
a habeas corpus was based. Gen.
Curtis, al employe of the treasury
department., in the custom house at
New York is now undergoing imprison-
ment by virtue of a judgment of the
United States circuit court for the southern
district of New York, rendered upon his
conviction under an Indictment, charging
him, as an employed of the United States,
with having received money for political
purposes from other employers of the
government contrary to the statutes of
1876. A writ of habeas corpus is asked
Tor to relieve him from this Imprisonment
court for review. F. Smith began
his argument by asserting that the court
below had no jurisdiction of the case, for
NN 'NeoO Cutb 0CAs OuIGlS dG tl0 LlUl0 Ol
the alleged offense was not an Executive
officer" of the government, within the
meaning of the statute. He was an ex-
pert, of whose special and technical
knowledge the government availed itself
III a certain class of custom cases. An ex-
pert in the custom house is not an s'execu-
tive officer" of the United States. This
being so, he is not amenable to the statute
inner which hn -oc 1oI
and the court below had no
right to try him. If the person
indicted be not such a person as the law
describes, then the court has no iurisdic.
ton. Whether the man is an executive
officer" or not is a jurisdictional question.
At this point Smith was stopped by the
chI7f justice who said: "Isn't that a aues-
ton for the jury!" Smith contended that
1t was also a question for this court.
Chief justice-Is it not a question of
facts?
Srnith-It is, but it is a question upon
which the jurisdi ton of the court below
depends, and is therefore a question for
your honors.
Chief Justice-Do I understand you to
be OF opinion that this court, on habeas
corpus proceedings, can ascertain whether
zen. Curtis was or was not an Executive
ofiicer"-tha we can go through the
record, and ook into the testimony for
that purpose?
MIR. Smith said such was his belief. The
chief justice asked no further questions, but
smiled in a way which seemed to indicate
that ne took a different view of the pro-
vince OF the United States supreme court
III such cases. Smith continued to main
tam hat this court was the supreme Judge
of Doth the law and facts, but he brought
Upon himself such a fire of embarrassing
questions from all parts of the bench, par
tIcC!arly from the chief Justice and JUS
tees Field, Harlan and Gray, that he
this branch of his argument.
smith next took up the question of the
constitutionality of the law. SIT is not.~
he said, "a statute to prevent the levy of
political assessments. It is a law against
voluntary contributions for political pur-
poses, and it is nothing else. It forbids
subordlnates to unite for the promotion of
ooJects they approve, but it does not pre-
vent their superiors from using coercion to
compel contributions for purposes the
contributors may entirely disapprove. The
Constitution contains nc clause, and no
grant OF power upon which such a law,
PISSED Tor such a purpose, can rest. Ger
ta1uly authority for it is nowhere express.
~ given, nor does a careful scrutiny reveal
to US anything from which it
can be derived, by the most
strained Interference. After reviewing
at some length the clause of the constitu,
ton upon which the legislation in contro-
versy might be based, Smith continued
IF the postulate that the United States is
entitled to the full and undistracted atten.
ton and all the time of its employees be
true to the extent of making that propo.
sttion sufficient foundation for the ~lepisIa-
tlon under consideration, then congress
may not only regulate the domestic rela-
tlons of these employees, and subject them
TO sumptuary laws, etc., but NAV
say no such employees shall divert
his attention from public EMPLOYMENT
long enough to give a penny for religious
purposes; certainly that he shall not de-
vote OF his time to attendance upon
church services, Or distract his mind by
theological problems. Political and re-
llgious liberty are put by the constitution
upon an equal plane. One right, unde,
Any plausible pretext whatever, to restrain
the freedom of action of federal employees
20 political affairs, necessarily implies
q Ike power of control over their relig.
1ouS conduct. No Republican govern.
meht, state or national, has any
right under color of regulating Off
GA conduct, or otherwise, to make
such exactions OF its officer as shall DENY
him the right Or deprive him of the oppor.
tunity to exercise the ordinary privileges
OF electors and of a citizen. 1t is an insult
TO toe understanding to say that the giving
OF a Few dollars moro or less in support Of
political or religious ideas in which one
believes, OR permitting the use of a hall fol
Their propagation, has any tendency to
corrupt the public service, or impair the
eflciency of a public servant. Yet this is
tne action which this statute prohibits, and
If IN this particular void it is void in toto.
MI. Amith closed after speaking about an
hour.
Solicitor General Phillips spoke for half
an hour in reply. He said the pivotal
question IN the case was the constitution
ai1ty of the statute. Can the court say il
is legally absurds Ii. e. unconstitutional
Tor the legislature to declare that no EN-
ploye of the government shall become q
trustee, holding money for political pur-
poses?
Ii seems beyond controversy that the
federal Legislature can make provision to
$780,