Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-19
THE WRIT REFUSED.
Judge Bradley Makes short Work OF
the Coxey Petition.

Judge Bradley yesterday afternoon made
short work of the petition Of Gen" Coxey
and his fellow commonwealers. Browne and
Jones, for writ Of certiorari. refusing TO
grant the petition.
At the hour set for the hearing Of the Pc
ttion. O'Clock. Representative Hudson CT
Kansas. Mr.. A. A. Lipscomb and Mr.. Saml.
Hyman, counsel for the petitioners. appear
ed in court. but the petitioners were con-
spicuous by their absence. District At
torney Birney appeared on behalf Of the
government. Mr.. Hudson thea briefly spoke
in support of the petition.
Mr.. Birney said the petitioners had in
correctly assumed that the Police Court
was a court OF inferior jurisdiction. Tie
Police Court was a statutory court. having
concurrent Jurisdiction with the District
Supreme Court an any cases,
MIR. Lipscomb contcndsd that the statute
prohibiting the act committed by the de-
ferdants was unconstitutional, because II
authorized suspension OF II BY the Vice
President. Speaker, OF board Of Capitol
The Courts Opinion.
Judge Bradley rsndered a very brief opin-
ion remarking at the outset that there
would be no doubt that the Police Court
had concurrent jurisdiction. The writ would
rot lie simply 10 correct an alleged error.
So fer as the Question OF Jurisdiction was
contention that the Information was not
such an information as is required by the
oil ganic act and that the onfense charged
in the Information Is under an act OF Con-
gress which Is unconstitutional because II
prohibits or abridges the right OF the peO-
pie to peaceably assemble and petition for
a redress OF grievances and because the act
itself authorizes a third party, or several
third parties, to suspsn nd it's. operation.
Referring TO some of these propositions,
Ind rcd
frivolous for serious consideration.
Constitutional Question.
The constitutionality of the statute was
deserving OF more serious consideration,
although there was little in the proposition.
The statute under which the petitioner had
been prosecuted was intended for the pro-
lection of the Capitol grounds and OF Con-
gress when IN session. This r1ent 10 assem-
bic and to petition for rcorsss oi sri ~,
ances is q right that is subordinate 10 the
rights of the public genefalty II Is not
right that will enable parties 10 override
the rights of others. II they have the con-
stftutional right to assemble anywhere they
have the right 10 gather in the halls OF the /.
House or Senate as WAS well suggested by
Judge Miller. "Tramps with vermin," ex-
claimed Judge Bradley. could take posses
sion of these halls and there would be TO
power TO dislodge them. II seems TO me
that / have dignified this argument too
much with reference to It
As to the contention that the law was
unconstitutional because IL allowed the
President OF the Senate. the Speaker Of the
House OF Representatives or the sergeant
alarms TO suspend its operations. Judge
Bradley said that Il did not allow third
parties to suspend the penalty OF the law,
and did not vest power in the individuals
named. II was only power 10 license
In conclusion, Judge Bradley said that on
the whole he did not see that any such case
had been made out by the petitioners as to
cause him 10 grant the petition, and IL
would, therefore, be dismissed
Replying to an inquiry of Mr.. Lipscomb,
District Attorney Birney said that he would
this morning move for sentence.