The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1896-12-11
FEDERAL COURTS
And,tho Enormous business That
Comes Before Them.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. HARMON,
Make. Ill. Annual ,cpnrt- states OF Cnss,!
Iisrore tho United state. supreme court.
Needed I,eforms OF tho Criminal Law.
\ Weak Places In tho hnti-r'rmst' Law.
Money snvr-db by kbe,i,hins Esessystem.

torney General Harmon In his annual
report to Congress Expresses hia satls-
fiction at the results, No fal"a as obtained.
OF tho now salary system, which dis
placed the old fee syEteiDl on July l OF
the present year. The returns. he says.
AFFORD striking evidence OF the wisdom
OF the course 30 long ~advocateds which
removes the public service from, some OF
the common temptations to cxtravn-
ganc and abuse. 4 very large rcduc-
tlon Is shown In every n OF the Items
which would naturally be effected by
the fcGs system. The fees for United
States marshals will show n reduction
for the year Of about 100000 from those
of.the previous year.
Other reductions wllfbe rnudea approx
imntcly as follows: Fees for Jurors,
$sl5. JOG. fees OF witnesses, 1901 ,0IS; pay
OF bnillnE $9i,920;. salaries and expenses
of district, attorneys, Slgs,0+2. The re-
port shows that although there was an
increase during the year OF nifty In the
number OF Gases dOcRetcd by the United
States supreme court, there was an III
crease or ei5lfty-thrce In the number
disposed OF.
The dockets Mt the close or the Inst
term show q decrease OF l07 cases since
the close OF the preceding term. At the
end OF the October term, 1894. there re-
manned undlSposcd Of on the appellate
docket SO cases, and upon The original
docket seven cases. making u total OF
ca. The number OF cases dncketctt at
the October term. 1895, vas 3S6, OF which
$50 were on the appellate II four on
the Original docket. mukInE The total
number Of cuse5 pending at that u'rm
l,0sSS,.' or which I,O23 were on the appel
late and IL on the original docket. OF
this number 404 were disposed OF dur
Ing the October term. 1895, of which
$50 were on the appellate and 8 on the
original doctet. The number OF cases
actually considered by the N was
ia.
Tie attorney general points out two
defects In the criminal laws. to which
the attention OF Congress- IL invited.
The first. he says. IL the unnecessary
and unfortunate confusion Of Il Grim
lnaI legislation. Provisiurs are con-
stantly enacted to- meet special cases.
The consequence Is that II Is often diff
cult TO ascertain which of the two or
more laws is applicable to the case in
hand. Cases arise which ought IN be
covered by the law. but are not. and the
same oIenSe r. visited with various de-
b sEGfS VI punishment A4'I Ntu-l % bS
any difference in crininaIty. blu mere
~ by the fact that the various states re-
IatIng to specific Instances OF the Of
ense were drafted by different men and
passed at different times. There II j
general statute Furnishing cmbcZzlement.
but there are also many special statutes
publishing ~enbeZ7icment IN particular
eases. and | am not aware thai 1t has
yet been settled whether the general
statute applies TO such cases or lot
There are statutes Furnishing frauds on
the United States in many specific cases.
and there Is Il general statute furnishing
conspiracy to dcfrcud the United States
in all cases: but there Is no general stat
ute furnishing frauds against the United
States when committed by one man
alone.
l think that n new crimes act should
be passed az speedily a. possible, which
should contain provisions simple, easily
understood and general IN their scope.
covering such crimes as these q
stated: that n Uniform system OF pun
ishmcnts should thus be provided, n
that as 10 cases arising In the future
the present laws relating 20 these
crimes should be repeated. This work
could be easily and quickly performed
by q commission.
The increasing repuEnancc on tho
part OF turtles 10 intlict the death pen
atty, in connection with the fact that
the laws makes no degrees In murder
constantly leads TO the entire acqutttal
of persons charged with capital crimes,
In cases where tho facts proven not only
warrant conviction for murder, but
oblige the court 10 charge that they 90
not permit a conviction for mere man
slaughter. This danger TO society can
be at least mitl6ated by the establish
ment by statute of different degrees of
murder. with corresponding appropriate
grades OF punishment. JurieS Will not
then be confronted with the alternative
OF a verdict which carries the death
penalty or i verdict OF acquittnl In cases
where they Shink the accused guilty OF
the murder. hut not deserving OF the cX-
trerne punishment.
The second defect Is the unfortunate
results Of III" present law governing
wrIts OF error TO the supreme court In
criminal cases. Defendants In criminal
cases are generally poor. I. IS hard for
them to obtain counsel to defend them
mt home. but Il is generally beyond their
power To obtain cOunsc to argue their
cases before the supreme court. While
the criminal Jurisdiction or that court IS
o 30 extensive as 10 take up n consld-
cradle part OF the time spent by the
justices In the study OF records and
briefs. yet the oral arguments Of these
caseg are largely for the reason above
stated. comparatively few. They are
mainly confined to cases against the
Weather classes OF Defendants, such as
smugElcrg and bank officers.
The cases Of the United States against
Rider and the United States against
Hewecker. the attorney general Gays,
dIscloses another grave defect In our
criminal procedure. The dcc!slons arc
that tho statutes permitting the SUI
prCmc court to review questions OF Grim
Innl law upon certificate OF division OF
opinion between the circuit and dis
trict Judges has beer implicdly repeated
The court had previously held that there
can he no writ OF error on behalf OF the
United States in n criminAl case. The
consequence Is that when q doubtful
point arises In n criminal casc there is
no way In which u can be taken to The
supreme court. except by resolving this
doubt In the iirst instance against thf
prisoner permitting q conviction. ant
casting upon him the burden and *
pense OF prosecuting n writ or error
Formerly, when n question arose on de-
murrcr Or.motion in arrest of judgment
the Judges could certify difference oI
opinion. This certificate was submit
ted to the supreme court. which coult
thus IN n Cheap and expeditions manner
dispose OF the question. | think that tn
present stntc OF the law IL unfair bott
10 the government, and TO defendants II
criminal cases.
| recommend that the right to certify
division In opinion In such cares DO
restored. or that n writ OF error be nj
lowed 10 the United States upon ques'
tIOnH arisinu on demurrer or motion II
arrest OF Judgment.
The ATTORNEY Kcncrnl says That las