Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-04-22
APPEALS IN MURDER CASES.
Arguments by the Solicitor General Again
Granting q Writ to Cross.

Arguments by the Solicitor General Against
Granting a Writ to Cross.
Solicitor General Aldrich, on behalf of the
government will make motion in the United
States Supreme Court next Monday to dismiss
the writ of error which is petitioned for by VIM.
Cross, convicted in this District Of murder.
The decision in this case will settle definitely
the question whether murder cases can be ap-
pealed from the District courts to the United
States Supreme Court. The case will therefore
have highly important bearing upon future
murder cases.
The motion to dismiss will be based upon the
ground that "the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict of Columbia is not a court Of the
United States within the meaning Of
1889, entitled An act to abolish
circuit court powers of certain district courts
of the United States, and to provide for wrlts
Of error in capital cases, and for other pur-
poses (25 Stat. $3.50. and this court therefore
has no jurisdiction of said writ Of error"
The solicitor general in his brief quotes o
number of opinions heretofore rendered in
support of his argument, including the recent
decision in the Heath case, that the judgments
OF the Supreme Court OF the District OF Column
bia IN criminal cases are not embraced by the
provisions OF the act OF March 3, 1891, and SAYS:
If, then, the term court of the United
States had by "a long line of decisions acquired
a settled Interpretation which excluded the
courts of the District OF Columbia We must pre-.
sumo that Congress used it in the act OF Febru-
airy 8, 1889, In its ordinary established sense.
IAN argument in support Of this position Is
furnished by the fact noted in McAllister vs..
United States (supra), that where the terrific
ries are intended to be included this is done
by express language. An example OF this is
found in the act OF March 8, lS9l, section IL
vt in fba rioht of h1,
OF the Indian Territory, an unnecessary pro-
vision were the courts of that territory courts
of the United States.
"Nor do We think there is anything in the
reason Of the law requiring that this fixed
meaning OF the term should be changed for
the purpose Of enabling this court to revise
the judgments of the Supreme Court of the
District OF Columbia in criminal cases.
THE QUESTION OF POLICY
"In our jurisprudence there is usually found
Q court Of errors review as to all important
interests. The trial court is not allowed
to finally dispose of questions affecting
the life or large property interests of the citi-
zen. There IS no reason, as we submit, why the
criminal convicted of murder in the Dis
trict Of Columbia should have two courts Of
error or review.
The delays and chances of escape are
thereby greatly increased aud the Of
fectiveness Of the criminal laws correspondingly
impaired. 1t 10 now, We believe, generally
conceded that such laws depend for their
efficiency not 80 much on the severity Of the
punishments prescribed as upon the certainty
and promptness Of such punishment
I'VE admit that those considerations would
be more properly addressed 10 Congress were
We seeking change in prior decisions. Where,
however. rs in this case, We are opposing any
change in the established decisions, We feel q
liberty to urge these considerations Of public
policy.
should be sustained"