Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-08-26

confer jurisdiction upon the Federal
Courts: Your contract is with the t'ederai
Courts; your treaty is with the t'ederal
authorities; your treaties are with the Gov
eminent of the United States, and there
fore made a party.' Thus the United
States as the treaty-making power, would
be able 70 enforce treaty obligations, ana
would not be forced, as in the past, when
the supreme power has depended enureiy
upon State action, to stand IN contempt IN
the presence of the Nations OF the eartn.
Finally, the committee oeheves tnat tne
measure proposed is not only practicable,
but is less Objectionable than any other
that could De devised. II could not inter-
fere with or change the laws OF the sever
al States in regard to
WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME,
and does not provide a different penalty
for an act against the rights OF an amen
and an act which is a crime against cltl-
zen of the State; while. II the Federal
Courts should not adopt the laws of the
state. there would be two laws making a
different offense of the same act in given
State.
Again. the far-reaching character Of this
bill can hardly be appreciated or anticlpa-
ted. II was stated in the Senate that there
are fifty thousand aliens in Chicago alone,
and that possibly one-third, but certainly
one-ffth, OF the population OF Wisconsin Is
alien. The same conditions, to a greater or
less degree. OBTAIN in many Of the north
western States. Think, then, OF the end
less confusion which would result from the
division OF the criminal administration or
those States between two jurisdictions IN
such q manner that possibly man may De
subject 10 two prosecutions for the same
offense and this Inconvenience is 10 be IN
Cured 10 provide a remedy for sporadic
cases which, after all, no law IN any coun-
try has ever been able either TO prevent or
to remedy, aud OF which we have had ex-
actlv one-half dozen in our history as
nation.
Ihls suggests another uncertainty as TO
whether under this bill man can be tried
twice for the same offense. The bill adopts
the criminal law of a State, but II also
makes any act which is a crime against
the state like crime against the
United States. II then, one accused
is tried in the State court, and that
tribunal holds that the act complained
OF was not a crime under the law OF the
State. would his acquittGl be effectual to
secure his discharge upon a trial for the
same offense in the United States Court.
Upon this precise question, as 10 the effect
of the bill, aO,e lawyers differed In the
Senate. and il may be fairly presumed that
able Judges would differ upon the bench.
The avowed purpose Of this bill is TO
remedy evils as the New Orleans lynch
ings.
IT SEEMS HARDLY FITTING
to make such outbreaks the basis OF legis-
lation OF a general character and OF char
| acter so far-reaching. II would seem TO be
better TO leave them 10 be dealt with &C
cording 10 the circumstances Of each case,
. ha rHrff hon II l.
Guilty.
Another objection which, if not constitu-
tiOual, is at least fundamental, is that this
legislation violates the ancient principle OF
| Anglo-Saxon liberty, which may be termed
the lOcalizatiou Of crime with respect to
trial and punishment From the earliest
times trial by vicinage was the English
mans birthright IL was not surrendered
when the prosecution was transferred from
the Lords Paramount to the Crown. The
accused was not brought 10 the Judges In
London, out the Judges went down TO try
him az his home, and he was entitled TO a
Jury Of his neighbors.
our ancestors brought the same princi-
pie over the sea. IL was imbedded in the
constitutions Of the Federal Union and OF
every State. One Of the complaints in the
Declaration Of Independence was the depri-
walton in many cases Of the benefits OF trial
by Jury, and another, transportation be-
yond the seas 10 be tried for pretended
| OheuSes.
We conclude, therefore, that the prof
fered legislatiOn,is not necessary nor de-
sireable, and believe that. to say the least,
there are grave doubts of its constitution
atty, and that in operation it would prove
uncertain and impracticable; we therefore
recommend the passage OF the following
| resolution:
Resolred, That, in the opinion of this AS
ISOLATION, it is unnecessary and ineXpedi-
ent that there should be any legislation by
Congress to give TO the Federal courts
jurisdiction OF crimes against the persons
aud property of aliens in any case in which
such jurisdiction does not exist, as the sim
liar cases in which a citizen is the injured
party.