The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1882-12-06
NOT A GOOD PLEA.
A Political Agent Not Entitled to
the Privileges OF an Ambassador
-DecfsiOn I'm the Case of MIR. Uitz.

A Political Agent Not Entitled to
the Privileges of an Ambassador
Decision I'm the Case OF MIR. TIitz.
Justice wyllo this morning, In the Criminal
Court, rendered his decision on tho plea and
demurrer argued last Saturday In tho case of
Mr.. John Hitz and DR.. O, Z. Prentlss, indicted
for misapplying the funds OF the German
American Bank, Mr.. Hitz being president Of
the bank at that time. His Honor said that
has been heretofore published, and which tho
Government demurred to. He had come TO the
conclusion that as to the causes OF the do.
OF political agent was good defense, then II
was proper 70 set out that he was an allen. 30
important fact In support OF
His Position OF Political Agent.
As to the other branches, which II was alleged
wereduplex, that no was coneul.general aud
tho plea that no might have performed the
duties OF both ofIices at tho Same time. But
by the stipulation filed 1t was shown that he
was first appointed consul-general and after
ward political agent, which destroyed tho du.
plex appearance on the face OF the plea. Gen.
eral Butler In his argument had dismissed
erai, but rested solely and exciusiveiy,on the
defendants right as political agent. He
should regard the plea as valid so far as form
was concerned, and regard tho demurrer as q
general demurrer to the substance of the plea.
Ho then read from Lawronce's Wheaton to
the effect that consuls were not foreign min:
the State or local laws whore they sojourn,
and said that tho great weight OF authority
supported this law as thus laid down.
Ho then read the seventh article OF tho treaty
between Switzerland and the United States,
which gives TO each the right TO havo consuls
in the large cities, and that they shall be sub
mittcd to the laws Of tho place whero they re.
side. He said that
Switzerland Had no Right TO Send n
ConsuI.GeneraI to This Country,
and in the second place whoever did como
that consul was not entitled In the first
place to diplomatic privilege. Next he road
the clause OF the Constitution which gave the
Supreme Court OF tho United States original
Jurisdiction In the case of ambassadors, etc.,
and said In such n case this court had no jurls
diction and would OF itself take notice of such
a fact. This question had never been fully
met by tho Supreme Court OF the United
States, but In his opinion tho great weight OF
The Judiciary act OF i7so was AS drawn By
eminent men, some OF whom assisted In franz
Ing tho Constitution, and 1t was there shown
| Jurisdiction was not given to the Supreme
| Court OF the United States, but was also con.
ferred upon the Circuit and District Courts.
He then read from case In Pennsylvania,
| finally appealed to Chiof-Justice Jay, who held
! that tho Supreme Court did not have solo and
exclusive Jurisdiction Ia such cases. The
| question came before tho Supreme Court of
| the United States In tho case OF Davis against
Parker, and, although not meeting the ques.
| District Court and its Jurisdiction. Chief.Jus-
| tice fancy, in an opinion, decided that
The Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court
in the case of consuls was not exclusive but
concurrent with the Circuit and District
courts. There was another aspect OF this con-
| stitutlonal question that occurred to him. Tho
object Of the Constitution and provision Affect
| Ing ambassadors he wished to suggest, In re-
| gard TO the jurisdiction conferred upon tho
supreme Court, was conferred upon ambassa-
doris as plaintiffs. BY the Constitution they
i n al w
| by this provision, II they wished to institute
legal proceedings they could go directly to
Of inc bo SI Sa
It was privilege to sue In the highest court
In tho country in the first instance and this
sadors and granted them this privilege, why
then should a different application be given
In the case OF consuls.
| encountered. Tho Supreme Court, In most
instances, was unsuited to try criminal cases.
They had no machinery to prosecute crime.
| 1t was UNIT, and the constitution OF the court
itself untitled 1t for trying such cases. For
these reasons he was very clear that II Mr..
Hitz Intended by the plea to avail himself of
OF the United States he could not do so. There
was another question, however, and that was
dentials as political agent.
His Honor thought that the letter connected
him go closely with the position OF Consul
General that whom one failed both failed. He
supposed that II was the intention Of the Swiss
Confederation to attach this ofrice to that OF
Consul. One thing he noticed, that the COM
Republic, which seemed to him TO DO some
thing remarkable. II 1t was the intention of
the Confederation to confer upon Mr.. Hit2 au
onlce OF diplomatic character, the credentlal
would certainly have carried tho seal.
He had come TO the conclusion thnt the
privileges of an ambassador from suit and
trial are inseparable from diplomatic char
acter II they have not that diplomatic char
acter, although acting under the highest por.
nNaaN .ft lnls ntG al NOT
entitled TO diplomatic privileges, and 1t Is 50
laid down In tho authorities. II these privi-
leges depended upon the diplomatic char
actor,
what Diplomatic Character Had MIR.
Hitz?
Tho whole of II was that he was n political
agent, sent here to talk politics with the Sec
rotary Of State. He had no business to trans
act and no authority to transact any. He
merely had to express the friendly sympathy
and sentiment OF the confederation toward
,his country He had unlimited priyiege, to
authority to do anything else. Mr.. Hltz could
not keep up this thing forever. He could not
go Into business here, violate the laws, and
when indicted plead immunity in this
| manner
| plea, and he would sustain the demurrer.
| Mr.. Barrett said the Indictment was now
nearly three years old. They had anxiously
wanted a trial, and their client had never been
arrested.
"Do you want him arrested" asked the
| Judge.
az would like to- have him arrested" said
Mr. Barrett, sin order that we might at onco
take the matter to.a higher court"
"We Will give him trial at an early day,
Your Homer" spoke District Attorney Cork
| hill.
"why don't you arrest him ?" said Mr.. Bar
rett.
81 will see that no is here In time for trial."
answered the District Attorney, and the mat
| ter dropped.
Mr. Barrett subsequently noted an appeal to
| the Court In Banc.
THE COURTS.
| EQUITY CoURT--Justice Hagner.-Dest VS..
| Best commission to get answer OF infant de-
| PENDANT ordared- walhrId va Smith AT nj .