The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-13
NO LAW TO FIT BAIRD.
Judge Hanford's Decision in
Ex-Inspector's Case.
EIGHT CRIMINALS SENTENCED.
Several Well-Known Offenders Indicted
Grand Jury Dismissed-Prison-
er's Ill Luck.


in the case Of the United States VS.. J. c. Baird.
He held that Baird could not be indicted for ar
resting or interfering with Holden, because of
tie fact that there was no las upon the United
States statutes under which he could be pun
ished. The decision supports the stand taken
by United States Attorney Winston, and is as
follows:
United States OF America VS.. J. C. Baird:
Hanford. 1.-The record IN this case shows
that the defendant has been heretofore arrested
on warrant issued by "a nited States commits
sIODer, for an alleged violation OF section 5,4a7
of the revised statutes of the United States and
alter an examination By sad commissioner held
10 BALL Tor MS appearance al the present term of
this court 10 answer for said oifense. The case
Is now brought before the court by the following:
"PaEsENTAENT OF The GRAND JURY.
I'VE the grand jury, desire to report that we
have invests gated the case of the United states
Va j. c. Baird, Charged with violation OF Sec
tloa 5,447, revised statutes, aud found the fol-
lowing 20 be the facts OF the case: That z. I.
Holden, then an inspector OF customs for the
district oI Puget sound, was, on the evening of
July 70, ISL. in the town OF Wooley, engaged
II all attempt TO capture certain Chinese labor
ers, who had entered the United states contrary
10 Law, and who were not entitled 10 be in the
United states. That while so engaged, the de-
fenGant, J. {. Baird, seized upon the said Z. I.
Holden aud hanacuffed him and InIerfered with
lin in the performance OF his work. We further
Ind that said z. !. Holden, at the time he
Interfered with, was not acting under the direc-
ton OF any court OF law nor executing any legal
process We have requested the United States
attorney upon these facts 10 prepare bill of in
0ictmenf against the said J. c. Baird and ne
mas, IN response TO said request, informed US
That ne Is unable TO find law covering this
case upon the Iacts presented Ne therefore de-
sire 10 present J. {. Baird 10 the court for hav-
ing Gone the act herein stated, and 10 obtain
the opinion of the court as TO neither the facts
set forth constitute offanse against the
United states. d. K. MCKINLEY,
Foreman OF the Grand jury
II IS one oil the fundamental uriuc.piss OF our
government that no IhGn can De required to de-
lend against q criminal prosecution in q court
OF the United states Tor mere wrong doing, nor
unless the charSe against him BE- the commits
son OF al Ottense made punishable BY q law OF
the United ~ les. By the division OF govern
mental powers between the several states and the
national government the punishment OF all
such oienses a assaults, batteries. unlawful
arrests and breaches OF the peace, committed
within state, belongs 20 the state. The act
which the defendant is charged with having
committed Is not a crime against The United
states because OF any injury 10 SIR. Holden Is a
private citizen, nor unless national authority
has been opposed, resisted or dened, anu the cx-
ecutIon OF the laws Distracted or made difficult
by the lli-treatment of au officer Section 5.347
must be understood as having for it's objects the
prevention OF interference with the opera
tons OF the government, and pro-
lection To its officers in the perform
ance oil official duty. The statute by the
phrases "any officer and execution of his
duty refers to official character rather than 10
an individual and 20 Official duty, that is. some
peculiar duty appertaining to an office By
the presentInent IL appears that Mr.. Holden was
at the time an officer o; the United states and
that ne was assaulted, opposed aad interiered
win But his effort to arrest Chinese persons
VINO are not lawfully in the United States or
emitted TO remain therein, although commend
able. was no part of his duty as an inspector OF
customs. The general laws, and the regulations
OF lhe treasury department., require ali customs
offlcers. including inspectors, to keep suryail-
anee OF ali boats and vessels coming into the
United states. and give them power 10 make
rs
OF the revenue laws laws relating 10
commerce and navigation, and TO the in
spection and regulation Of vessels. The acts
excluding Chinese lgborers from coming into
the country contain provisions. which may be
construed as imposing upon these officers the
duty OF preventing the landing from any boat or
vessel OF Chinese persons not entitled to land in
the country. but the statutes do hot make it a
duty OF these officers TO arrest Chinese persons
VINO nave been landed. or unlawfully brought
IN by land nor give them any power greater
than or different from the power of private
citizen. The thirteepth section of an act
entitled IAN act to prohibit Chinese la
States" 18th United states Statutes, 40.
provides: That any Chinese persons or
person. OF Chinese descent found unlawfully in
the United states, or is territories NAV he ar
under oath, filed by any party on behalf of the
United states, by any justice, judge or comnis-
sloner OF any United States couEi." By the,
same section and also by the twelfth section of
the original restriction act as amended bv the
act OF July ), 1884, 23d United States Statutes
us, eli pence officers of the several states and
territories are invested with the powers of
United states marshal under said acts These
provisions not only omit 10 mention inspectors
of customs, but seem to confer all power of
making arrests upon other and different officers.
without authority conferred BY law, and not
acting In obedience 10 precept of any court in
executing legal process, nor in aid OF any
ohcer having authority 10 arrest the Chinese
persons referred in the prcsentment Mr. Hol-
den was not, by his oudesvors TO make the ar.
rest, executing his duties an officer of the
United States. Il do no: mean to be understood
as saying that Mr.. Holden was endeavoring 10
accomplish an unlawful purpose In my
opinion, rs citizen. he could lawfully arrest
Chinese labcrers in The act of coming into the
United States unlawfuliy and detain them until
complaints could be made against them and
warrants issued, but in so doing he was not per
forming any official function. The case there
fore, does not come within section 54i7 Of the
revised statutes, and l find no statute to meet
the ease.
X is my opinion that this grand Jury has no
power TO indict the defendant, aud this court
has no power 10 punish him for the acts OF which
he Is accused.