Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-04-25
THE CASE OF CROSS.
Up Before the U. 8. Supreme Court on .
Motion to Dismiss.

Motion to Dismiss.
The Cross case came mp in the Supreme
Court Of the United States today on Solicitor
General Aldrlch's motion to dismiss the writ
OF error '-for the reason that the Supreme
Court OF the District OF Columbia is not a
court Of the United States within the meaning
OF section Of the act OF February s, 1889, y and
therefore the Supreme Court of the United
States has no Jurisdiction.
Brief in opposition 10 the motion TO dismiss
was filed By Chas. Maurice Smith and Joseph
skilIngton.
A decision is looked for either on May or
those days no further action can be taken until
next term.
THE BRIEFS sUBMIrTED.
In Fridays STAR was given an abstract OF the
brief Of the solicitor general on the motion to
deny the writ Of error, maintaining that the
District Supreme Court was not a court OF the
character contemplated by the law relating to
appeals in capital cases. and. furthermore, con-
tending that 10 hold that such appeals could go
ito the Supreme Court would give the benefit TO
convicted persons of two counts OF review, with
the consequent increased chances OF escape
from punishment.
The brief submitted BY Messrs. Chas. Maurice
Smith and Joseph Shillington. counsel for the
plaintiff in error. is quite an elaborate one and
Is devoted to the substantiatiOn OF two points.
first. that the Supreme Court of The District OF
Columbia a court of the United States within
the meaning OF the act of February 6. 1883. and
second, that such section provides that an ap-
peal in all criminal cases where the punish
Taent is death can be taken 30 The United States
supreme Court from any court OF the United
States
THE LAWS IN QUESTION.
Section 6 of the act referred 10 is as follows:
THAT hereafter in al cases of conviction OF
crime the punishment of which provided by
law ia death. tried before any court OF the
United States. the final judgment Of such court
against the respondent shall. upon the appiica-
ton Of the respondent. be re-examined. re-
versed or affirmed by the Supreme Court Of
the United States upon a writ of error. under
such rules and regulations as said court may
prescribe" DC.
In maintaining that the Supreme Court OF
the District Is such a court sections $50. 100
and $40 OF the Revised Statutes relating to the
District OF Columbia quoted Section $50
is as follows: There shall be Supreme Court
of the District. which shall consist of a chief
justice and four associate justices, who shall
severally be appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
and shall hold their Offices during good be-
havior"
Section go reads: "The Supreme Court shall
possess the same powers and exercise the same
jurisdiction the circuit courts of the United
States"
Section $40 says: "Any final Judgment order
or decree of the Supreme Court of the District
may be re-examined ard reversed or affirmed
Ia the Supreme Court of the United States.
upon writ of error or appeal. in the same cases
and In like manner as provided by law in ref
ersnce to the final judgments. orders and de-
crses of the circuit courts of the United
States"
The sections, counsel contend have never
been repealed. and they allege that the United
States Supreme Court has recognized this
court as a circuit court of the United States,
and explicitly speaks of and desisnates it as
the Circuit Court OF the United States for the
District of Columbia in q number of cases,
which are cited
Counsel assert that while 1T is not main
tanned that the supreme Court of tine District
Of Columbia is a circuit court of the United
States under the law organizing the circuit
courts of the United States among the differ
ent states, still IL must be conceded that il is a
court Of the United States having all the
powers and jurisdiction of district and circuit
courts and even greater jurisdiction than cir
cult courts, and that by custom and usage. by
judicial Interpretation and legislative enact
ments, it Is virtually q circuit court Of the
United StateS.'
UNLIKE TERRITORIAL COURTS.
They also emphasize the fact that this cour.
Is unlike the United States territorial courts
in this-that the justices OF the court are APP
pointed. like ''all circuit court justices. by
the President, by and with the advice and
justices, hold theIr Office during good behavior.
and are and have been retired upon full paw
under section IA Of tae Revised Statues of the
United States in the same manner as all other
federal judges" and that .'rnlike territorial
courts, this court is permanent and contnu-
ing one and must be so as long as the seat OF
the government remains here"
Section of the act of 1880 counsel claim
ais the first Law IN the history of the govern
ment passed BE- Congress confcrrins upon the
supreme Court OF the United states appellate
jurisdiction in all criminal cases where the
punishment Is DEATH" and they contend that
the law was one passed in the interest OF hu-
manity-passed for the sole purpose of giving
person condemned to death. after a trial In a
court of the United States. the right TO have
the case re-eXamined. reversed or affirmed BIZ
the United States Supreme Court.
WHAT WAS SAID IN CONGRESS.
Such. they claim, WAS the unanimous opinion
Of Congress. and in support of their claim the
following is quoted from page 993 Of the Con-
gressional Record of January 10. 1883:
Mr.. Rogers la member of the judiciary COM
mittee o. the House of Representat.ves)-It
will perhaps take three minutes to read the
bill and pu: IL upon Its passage, and. i.asmuch
as 10 Is IN the interest OF, humanity to grant
these writs of error throughout the Union L
ask unanimous consent that II may be put Upon
its passage at this time.
Mr.. Randali-As understand il this bill pro-
poses 70 give TO persons condemned To death
an additional chance of life.
Mr. Rogers-Yes, sir, 1t simply proposes TO
grant to a party who may have been con-
demred to death in a federal court the right
10 have the law OF his case reviewed upon the |
record by the Supreme Court OF the United
States.
Mr.. Ford-Which right he does not now pos
sess.
Mr.. Rogers-A right which he does no. now
possess and never has Possessed in this coun-
Try, although IN every state N the Union a cor
responding right exists with reference to cases
arising under the state law. 1t a right which |
ought to exist II every civilized government
on earth.
These marks, counsel say. clearly and ex-
plicitly show that Congress intended that the |
act should extend to all federal courts of the |
Union. the term ANY cour. of the United |
States being, they contend, too clear and IN
Ambiguous to admit OF any other construction
In this connection they call attention TO see
ton 90 o. the Revised Statutes relating 20 the |
District of Columbia which declares tina. .'the
Constitution and all the Laws of the United
States which are not locally lnapplicable shall
have the same fo-ce and effect within the Dis
trict elsewhere within the United States"
and also TO various decisions
Mr.. Justice James OF the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia. IN General Term III
ex parte Norvell decided February s, 1922 is
quoted at great length is confirming the con-
tention of counsel that the cour. Is q court of
the United States within the meaning Of the