Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-01-16
THE MUSICIANS BOYCOTT CASE.
The Appeal to the Supreme Court
Briefs Pro and Con - Interesting
Ar0ument.

J. II. Ralston, counsel for Jas. c. Callan in his
application to the United States Supreme Court
for writ OF habeas corpus, has filed brief stat
ing that the appellant was in september charged,
with eight Others, In the Police Court with the
crime OF conspiracy. A jury trial was denied
them. In october they were tried and convicted,
and sentenced to pay fine OF $25, and in default
to be committed to jail for thirty days Appellant
made an appeal to the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict Of Columbia, which was subsequently With
drawn, and he was at once committed to the
custody OF the marshal that the sentence OF the
Police Court might be carried into effect that on
the same day he prayed for writ OF habeas corpus
which was denied November 23 and therefore an
appeal was made to the United States supreme
Court. The grounds OF appeal, as set forth In the
brief OF counsel are that the Supreme Court OF the
District OF columbia erred IN not discharging
petitioner, because he was not convicted upon an
Indictment or presentation by grant jury, the
offense with which he was charged being IN
famous; because he was not granted a speedy
because he was tried by Judge not appointed for
good behavior, In accordance with the provisions
OF the Constitution, and because he was not tried
by Jury as prescribed by the Constitution OF the
United States.
THE GOVERNMENTS SIDE
The brief OF the Assistant Attorney General for
the appellee, sets forth that the petitioners CON-
plant, that he was not held to answer on pre-
sentiment or Indictment OF grand Jury. llay be
dismissed without further notice. the conspiracy
laid in the Information Is not an lnfamous crime'
within the meaning OF the NTH amendment OF the
Constitution, the punishment OF the Onense not
being by confinement In penitent1ary, and
the offense itself not being cyfmea Jdlsi
On the question had the petitioner right
1t would seem that the Constitution does not re-
quire that the right OF trial by jury shall be seI
cured to the people OF this District After giving
the history OF the sixth amendment, and arguing
that the District OF Columbia was omitted, 1t Is
claimed that in adopting the sixth amendment
the people OF the several states were s0licttOus
about trial by jury In the states and noOhere else,
way persons should be tried who might be ac-
cused OF crime on the high seas and In the Dis
tr1cJ and places to be thereafter ceded for public
purposes. This was . discretion, the brief says
that was wisely left 70 congress, and which It
was not at all likely the people OF the several
gress to abuse 80 long a. they themselves
stttutions they had founded. But supposing
Q Constitutional guaranty Of trial by Jury
TO exist the brief says 1t has not been denied The
language Of the amendment Is that In all criminal
prosecutions the accused "shau enjoy the right
10 trial BY jury. While the original language Of
except In cases OF impeachment shall be by jury >
There Is o difference in the meanings Of these two
forms OF expression. and It II submitted that It Il
clear that the requirement OF the sixth amend
ment that the accused shall enjoy the right OF
trial BY jury Is largely subject to the VIII OF the
accused, and not . mode OF trial forced upon him
as it was BY the provision Of the Constitution
tion OF the court is also called to the view, sup
ported by authority that the guaranty OF trial 81
jury has never been understood 70 embrace petty
o0enseA