The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-11-13
TIE UNITED STATES COURTS.
Is Burglary on Uncle Sans Domains
q Capital Ofense2


q Capital O1ense2
The United States circuit court met
Yesterday morning after recess since last
Thursday. The grand jury returned into
court twenty-five indictments, among the
most important of which were for counter
feiting. breaking into postoffices, violations
Of pension laws and violations OF internal
revenue laws.
Attachments were issued for six default
ing witnesses.
William Pease, Esq. was admitted to
Mead and practice.
The district court also convened for the
November term, with the traverse jury in
attendance, and adjourned to this after
noon.
In the United States circuit court, yester-
day morning, an interesting question of
constitutional law was argued before his
honor, Judge Emory Spesr, in the case of
United States VS.. William e. Umbach.
charged with burglary and larceny of GER
tain articles belonging to the United States.
which had been stored for safe keeping in
Fort Oglethorpe, formerly Fort jackson.
II came up on u motion to quash the indict-
rnent
The indictment was framed under section
5S9l. United States Revised Statutes, and
section 1886 of the Code of Georgia. the
United States statute referred to providing
that If any otfense be committed in any
Mace which has been or may hereafter be
coded to and under the jurisdiction of the
limited States, which offense is not pro-
hibted or the punishment thereof is not
specially provided for by any law of the
United States, such offense shall be liable
to. and receive, the same punishment as
the laws Of the state in which such place is
situated, now in force, provide for the like
ofFense when committed within the juris-
dictioh of such state; and no subsequent
repeal of any such state law shall affect
any prosecution for such offense in any
court of the United States" This law was
first passed IN 1928, and its provisions were
re-enacted by the codi6cation and adoption
of the Revised Statutes Of the United
States in 1878.
r. r. Richards. Esq, attorney for the
defendant, moved to quash the Indictment
on several grounds. He claimed that sec
ton 1891, Revised Statutes, was unconstitu-
tional and void, because a citizen of the
United States who was guilty Of an act
committed in q fort in Georgia would be
punished differently from another citizen
who was guilty of the same act committed
for instance In the state of New York. and
that congress had no power to pass any
law which prescribes different punishment
Tor the same offenSe when committed in
different portions of the union He also
contended that the language of the statute
prescribing the punishment by the laws of
the state now of force" meant the laws of
the state of force when the first act using
that language was passed, and that as the
old law OF Georgia punished bur-
glary with death, that 1t was a cruel
and unusual punishment prohibited
by the constitution, and, therefore, the
statute was void. He also claimed that
under the old law it was not burglary to
break into any place where valuable goods
were kept, unless it be a dwelling house,
and that the later provisions Of the Georgia
code, making such an offense burglary
could not be applied.
Mr.. Richards was replied to by District
Attorney Marion Erwin. The latter
showed a number of instances from the
statutes in which congress had made differ
ent laws affecting property rights and diff
ferent punishments for the same offense,
according to the location of its commission.
and which laws had been sustained by the
courts as constitutional, and suggested as
reason for the law as made that it was but
Just and fair that the people of state COM
hitting an ofense in small place like a
fort should be punished by the laws
Of such state with which they
we're familiar. He contended that the
language or the statute, laws OF the state
now of force" meant of force in 1873 when
that provision was put in the Revised
Statutes and re-enacted, and that at that
time capital punishment for burglary had
been abolished in Georgia. and that pun
ishment prescribed which was not cruel and
unusual, and that the Georgia law then of
force made it burglary to break into such a
place where valuable goods are kept to COM
nit larceny.
After elaborate arguments on both sides,
and the production of authorities, Judge
Speer overruled the demurrer stating at
the same time that it had given him genuine
pleasure to listen TO the forcible and pointed
arguments which had been presented by
counsel on each side with unusual
skill, and stating that while
resolving all doubts in favor of
the constitutionality of a statute he had
reached that conclusion, but ne would
give Mr.. Richards an opportunity this
morning to present any authorities, if he
could find any, to break the force of the
contention of the district attorney as to the
| proper construction of the language "now
Of force" as contained in the section of the
statute under consideration.