Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-22

Now that Col Ainsworth has been for
mally held responsible by the cor
oner's jury for criminal negligence in
connection with the death Of the
victims OF the Ford's Theater building. and
has been held to await the action
Of the grand jury, the question
has been raised by some persons
as to the Jurisdiction of the civil and
military authorities in the matter 1t
has been asserted that Col Ainswor.h
having asked for military court
of inquiry and the request having been granted
there will. should the court OF inquiry
decide that he should be tried by a court
martial, be conflict Of author
ity between the Criminal Court
and the court-martisl; provided Of course. he
responsible by military court Of inquiry.
1t has been further asserted by his friends
it Is said, that it was fortunate
that he asked for the court
of inquiry. for BY u trial by eourt-martial he
would escape. it is claimed through that courts
exclusive Jurisdiction of the matter, a trial by
the civil court. in which. it is said by his
friends, he couid not obtain a fair and impair
tlal trial because of the alleged intense public
feeling against him Further, it in said. that
once tried by court-martial, he could not be
tried by the civil court
ATTORNEY BIRNEY TALKS.
District Attorney Birney. to whom the cues
ton was presented today by a STAR re-
Porter, smiled at the suggestion OF con-
hlct OF authority between the civil
ana military courts, and remarked that ho felt
20 apprehension OF any such conflict of author
itv should it become necessary to trv Col
Alnsworth In both the civil and military courts.
Inc civil authority, he said was unuuestion
AMY supreme In the matter, and if Col.
AinsWorth should be indicted bv the
grand jury he would be tried be-
fore the District Criminal Court in
ire same manner as any other indicted person,
anu mat, too, quite irrespective OF what a court
mar 'iai might or might not do in the matter.
As TO the question as to whether or not Col
Ainsworth could be tried before both u court
martial and the Criminal Court for the
same offense, the district attorney stated
mat he could undoubtedly be so tried by both
courts, and in support Of this position he
quoted the case Of In re. Esmond ct al. fifth
Macksy. o.. In which the Court
In General Term of this District decided thai.
very question in the affirmative. I'm that
case, explained the district attorney. ..Es-
mond and Mcclure. two soldiers in
the third artillery. then uss51
stationed AZ the arsenal barracks here, were
tried In the District Criminal Court Of the
larceny OF watch belonging to one of
the officers OF that regiment The
men were acquitted. and upon being
subsequently, arralgned before court
martial, charged with the same Of
tense, they pleaded former acquittal.
ILeir Plea was decided not good and con-
viction followed, Esmond being sentenced to
one year s Imprisonment in the Albany peniten-
tiary and McGuir to six months imprisonment,
with the usual dishonoraLle discharge and ioss
OF pay. Maj. Gen. ". s. Hancock. in
his order confirming and approving the
innings and sentence Of the court martial.
SAID that after an examination of the law and
preeedents bearing on the question "a person
may, by single act transgress the
laws Of two jurisdictions, or for
instance. those Of the United
States and those of state, in which case the
the Supreme Court of the United States has
punish such offender. cannot be doubted.
vet Ii canLot be truly averred that tine offender
had been twice punished for the
same offense. only that by one
net he has committed two offenses, for
each of which he is justly puni,hsble He
could not plead the punishment Of one in bar
to conviction by the other
GEN. HANcocks RExARKs
Gen Hancock further said: That a
trial by civil court of an act
which has military as well as civil
relations is not lar to al
subsequent. trial BY court-martial and that
military as well as civil relations. 1t is
I legitimate conclusion from the fact that |
,ourts- martial uniformly deal with this crime,
that II Is a military offense. Otherwise We |
must assume that these courts are uni !
'o-mlT usurpinS authority, since it !
s their province to deal alone with !
,cts done in violation OF the articles OF war. |
Civil courts punish civil offenses; military |
courts. military ofenses. Their Jurisdiction is .
n no proper sense concurrent.
Upon Gen. Hancock's confirmation and ap- |
1royal OF the findings and sentence of the |
'ourt-mar.ial the convicted men sued out |
writ of habeas corpus, alleging that they /
we're on the facts stated illegally deprived OF |
herr liberty. Chief Justice Bingham. before |
Ehom the writ was made returnabe. thereupon |
ordered the discharge of the men.
rom which order the military authorities
ppealed to the Court in General Term, and |
hat court, in an elaborate opinion BIZ Mr. |
Justice James, reversed the order OF the |
hief justice aud ordered the men into |
he custody o. the military authorities
or action in conformity with the findings aad
ehteHce of the court-nlartial, thereby affirming
he action OF the court-martiai and also that of !
len. Hancock.
In view of this decision and o. those Of the |
United States Supreme Court ON the same sub
ect. District Attorney Birney stated that Col.
iinsworth ceuld undoubtedly be tried
or the same ofeuse both by the civil |
curt and BY a court-rnartial and be punished,
N conviction. by each court; each cour nc ting
l..