Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-08-21
THE BLOCK CASE DISMISSED.

THE BLOCK CASE DISMISSED.
Commissioner johnson Holds That He
| Has Not Jurisdiction.
TEE OPINION DELIVERED THIS HonNrNo-A HE-
VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE PoracE COURT
no FELONY YEr PROVED IN THfs cAs1-u-
TEREsTrNo POINTS DECIDED.
In the Criminal Court room this morn
| ing Q session was held by United States
| Commissioner johnson in the case Of United
States against Detective 8. ]. Block, charged
with compromising felony. At the session on
Monday, after the point ~ 70 jurisdiction had
| been argued by Mr.. b. E. Davis for the de-
fendant and Mr.. W. A. Cook for the prosecu-
| ton, the commissioner took the Gaze under
advisement. This morning the commissioner
rendered his decision sustaining the point Of
Mr.. Davis and Diminishing the case.
Commissioner Johnson's opinion was Of e.
peoisl interest, ~ IL discussed the question
Of the jurisdiction OF the Polioo Court and Of o
United States commissioner. After quoting
various laws and citing various authorities he
said:
'The initial proposition, then, Is that in those
cases in which the Police Court has original
and exclusive jurisdiction no other officer or
-.
Jurisdiction But United States commissioner
may still inquire into those offences committed
within the District which may be the subject
OF investigation BY the grand Jury, but he may
not trench upon the Jurisdiction Of the Police
elusive.
1T becomes important, then, TO ascertain
whether the ofense charged In this case il
within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Police
Court. The offense charged in the warrant il
By section 431 Of the Revised Statutes of the
United States relating to the District Of
Columbia The penalty prescribed by that
section 10 that the person violating ita pro-
visions 'shall be deemed ~ having compro-
missed felony and shall be prose-
cuted to the full extent Of the law for aiding
criminals.to escape the ends Of Justice
Two questions present themselves as neces-
sary to be answered in order to determine
whether the offense Tins punished is within
viz: 1, What are the offenses Of which tho
Police Court has such jurisdiction, and 2, what
Is the punishment belonging to the offense
charged. The first Of these questions has been
definitely answered by the highest judicial su-
thority. Says the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, referring to section 1049 Of
the Revised Statutes Of d. c., ''as clearly a.
language can effect it, this law draws the line
between mountainous misdemeanors and other
offenses at the wall Of the penitentiary.'
Ne We OAeuyt AacAcy, r. OS1s
WHAT Al INFAMOUS CRIME M
"And the Supreme Court of the United States,
speaking Of the same law, says: Infamous
crimes are thus in the most explicit words de-
fined to be those punishable by imprisonment
in the penitentiary.' (Mackey '. United States.
III q. g., p. 354) Ofenses not punishable by
imprisonment in the penitentiary are thus, by
the highest authority, shown to be those Of
which the Police Court had original and exclu-
sive jurisdiction in the District Of Columbia.
And it follows, Of course, that unless an
offense be punishable by such imprisonment
the Police Court has exclusive Jurisdiction Of it.
1t becomes, therefore, of vital Importance to
determine whether the crime charged in the
warrant is punishable by imprisonment in the
penitentiary, for IL 1t be not, then the Police
Court has exclusive Jurisdiction OF it At COM
mon law compromising even a felony is only
mlsdemeanor. known as misprision of felony
Il Bishop, Grim. Law, sec. 267) But, it may
be said, the statute provides that the offender
shall be prosecuted to the FULL extent of the
law for aiding criminals to escape the ends of
Justice
1t is generally agreed that (voluntary) es-
capes amount TO the same kind Of offense and
are punishable in the same degree as the
onense OF which the prisoner is guilty and for
which he is In custody, whether treason, felony
or trespass. But the officer cannot be
thus punished till the original delinquent hath
actually received judgment or been attained
upon verdict, confession or outlawry, Of the
crime for which he was committed or ar
rested, otherwise it might happen that the
officer might be punished for treason or felony
and the person arrested and escaping might
turn out to be an innocent man. But before
the conviction Of the original offender the
officer thus neglecting his duty may be fined
and imprisoned for q misdemeanor.'-4 Black.
Comm, 100.
CONDITIONS OF THE CASE.
"In the case under consideration the alleged
principal offender is not even claimed to have
been arrested, much less convicted. Now, il
the offense, thus shown to be q misdemeanor,
tlary! This question il directly answered in
the negative by the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia. The court says: For any
common law misdemeanor. except when the
statute has so expressly provided. the offender
cannot be sentenced to imprisonment in the
penitentiary for any period OF time whatever.
The Police Court has jurisdiction of
such ENTHUSIASTICALLY. g. v. Marshal, 8
Mackey, "a.
This decision makes il unnecessary to con-
slider what may be the effect of the provision
in section 1919 RS, DC, disqualifying the
offender from acting a. q police officer, for az
the statute does not expressly prescribe pun
ishment in the penitentiary the Jurisdiction Of
the Police Court is unaffected. Whatever may
have been my opinion previous to the decis-
ions Of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia that court has laid down the con-
struction Of the statute and l must follow that
construction. The case il dismissed and Mr.
Block is discharged"