Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-03-26

q made Of the Supreme Court Il the District Of
Co!umoia. and We perceive no ground Tor
holding that the judgmshts Of that court in
criminal cases we're intended TO be embraced BY
it's provisions
The conclusion d that Ne have no jurisdic-
tion to grant the writ applied for. and the
petition is. therefore, denied.
What 10 Said Of the Opinion.
Very few members of the District bar have
yet had opportunity 10 examine Chief Justice
rulers opinion, and are therefore not pre-.
pared to discuss its effect Mr.. r Ross Perry,
when asked BY . SrAR reporter for his view Of
the opinion, said: have examined the opin.
ion OF the Supreme Court Of the United States
In the case OF Thomas h Heath. The Languages
OF the opinion 10, IL seems 10 me, % lucid that
Its meaning cannot be m,sapprehended. Heath
was convicted In our Criminal Court Of man
slaughter, and this conviction ives affirmed BY
the Court in General Term. Thereupon Heath
applied to Chief Justice Fuller for writ Of
error from the Supreme Court Of the United
States to the Supreme Court Of the District Of
Columbia. This petition which vas heard In
the usual courss BY the court, was dismissed
and the writ Of error denied by the opinion
now under consideration.
The claim Of the petitioner was this: Section
sA6 Of the Revised Statutes, rslsting to the Die
trict Of Columbia, provides that ANY hnal
Judgment, order or decree Of the Supreme
Court Of the District may Be re-exsmined and
reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court o,
the United States upon writ Of srrer or appeal
In the same cases and in like manner - pro
vided by law in reference to the final judg
ments, orders and DEGREES OF the circuit courts
Of the United States" But this act Of Con
gress OF March s, 1891. provides that writs oil
error may be taken from the existing circuit
courts directly to the Supreme Court Of tn.
United States in cases of conviction of q capita
or otherwise infamous crime. Hence in THU
case OF conviction Of IN infamous crime q writ
OF error should issue from the Supreme Cour
OF the United States to the Supreme Court o.
the District of Columbia, since, confessedly, il
would issue in such case to . circuit court
Ibis argument rested Tor its validity upor
one assumption, to wit, the words ''as provided
by law" in section $40. mean not only the pro
visions Of law existing when that section wal
enacted. but all future provisions OF law In ref
ersnce to the allowance OF appeals or writs o.
error to the Supreme Court from the fina
Judgments, orders and DEGREES OF the circui
courts OF the United States. The petitioner il
e1ect said: admit that section $40 did no
give me this writ Of error, for when 1t wa
enacted no such writ would have issued in like
case to circuit court But the act OF Marcel
s, 1891, now gives the writ in such case to u cir
cunt court Therefore my case comes within
the letter Of section SAG.
This assumption the opinion in question ex
plicitiy denies by these words: 80 give to thi
iocai ie8isiatlon (sechon $40 extending tn,
appellate jurisdiction of this court to the Dis
trict Of Columbia. the construction contendes
Tor, SO As to make it include all subseQuen
Legislation touching our jurisdiction over cir
cult courts OF the United States, is quite mad
missibls.''
The opinion then proceeds TO declare tina
the act OF March 8, 1891, does not mention tn
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia an,
that no ground is perceived for holding tina
the judgments of that court in criminal case
were Intended to be embraced in its provis
ions.
repeat then that in my judgment this opin
Ion ls conclusive and unmistakable. Unde
section SAG proceedings in error were limited
by the law existing when that section wa
enacted. Those lir.its eau only be enlarged o.
removed by subsequent pertinent legislation
Ihe act OF March 3, 1891, is not such legislatio