Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-04
POLICE MAGISTRATES
Comprehensive Criticism of the Bill
Providing for Them.
Mr.. THOMAS ANSWERS MAJOR MOORE
Confusion That Would Result From
the Proposed Measure.
RESENT POLICE COURT

Mr.. Thomas. attorney for the District
has male d report on House bill 6991
which provides for the appointment OF five
police magistrates for the District Of Co
lumbia, and also the amendment thereto
Attorney Thomas says the major and su-
perintendent of police assumes that the
proposed amendment to section will OBJ
viate the constitutional objection suggest
ed by him. in his letter of the 23d ultimo
on the original bin.
Il cannot concur in this view" says Mr.
Thomas. THE amendment simply changes
the original section, so as to attempt to
make the police magistrates courts aux
mary to the Police Court for one purpose
OUT not Tor Others, and is intended to ap-
parently remove the constitutional objec-
ZION to the original section without doing
50 IN 1act 10 illustrate: The proposed
amendment to section provides. that
sa:d police magistrate ties shall be auxiliary
10 ana nave concurrent jurisdiction with
the Police Court of the said District, ex-
cept as hereinafter provided. Of all Of
lenses against the laws, ordinances and
regulations of the District of Columbia
and all such cases brought before them
az any of the sessions hereinafter pro-
'ldeu Tor the accused, when entitled there
TO- shail be rendered a trial by jury inthe
said Police Court, and except in cases
where the accused shall elect and be en-
tltled to a trial by jury, as provided in
section Of the ect of March 3, 1891. en-
titled An act to define the jurisdiction of
the Police Court of the District of Co
lumbia' the trial shall be by the police
magistrate. ~
Right Of Trial by Jury.
at is immatefral, In view of the decision
of the SupremesCourt of the United States
in Calistn VS.. Wtlsop-Q27 U. s.. 55D, wheth-
er a defendant entitled to a trial by jury
WAVES that right 'Dr not. In order that
the court assuRlingI to try him may take
cosnizance of the c5se for the purpose of
trial by jury ordby the court, on waiver of
a jury trial. it is essential that jury
should actually exist, under the control
and as component part of the court it
self. In other words, court without a
jury as part Of itself is not constitu-
tional court for the purpose of trying any
| case coming within the constitutional
sThis objection IS Said to be removed by
the use of the words auxiliary and coll
current in the proposed amendment to
section 2, but upon reading the entire sec
ton as amended it will be seen that there
Will be no concurrent jurisdiction what
ever. by the terms of the section as
amended the magistrates are to nave ex-
elusive jurisdiction in all cases where trial
by jury is not demanded, and the Police
Court exclusive jurisdiction where such
trial is demanded. Thus it will be seen
that tne jurisdiction OF the romeo court
only begins where the magistrates ends,
and the jurisdiction of the two do not run
together. but are absolutely separated by
the very terms of the section"
Confusion That Would Result.
'There is nothing in section 2. as amend
ed, defining the word auxiliary or stating
| in what connection it is to be used, but as
! the section eliminates from the Police
Court all jurisdiction, except where trial
by jury is demanded, presumably 1t is in