Evening star., 1898-06-28
AN IMUORTANT DECISION.
Criminals Indicted Here Can he
Brought From Stntes for Trial. =

Among the decisions rendered at New
York last Saturday by the United States
circuit court of appeals was one which has
a most important bearing on judicial mat
ters in the District. The case was that of
John Price, indicted here for the larceny of
about $1,000 from the Metropolitan Rail-
road Company. 1t will be recalled that the
n roney was stolen in restaurant or eat
ing saloon on 9th street near f. while the
bearer of it, an employe of the company,
was partaking of a lunch, the money being
in a hand satchel. 1t was claimed by the
local police authorities that Price COM
mitted the robbery, and he was apprehend-
ed in New York city. copy of the indict-
ment returned against him was forwarded
to the United States marshal at New York
and his surrender for trial here on the in
dictment was thereupon demanded.
Judge Brown denied the application for
a warrant of removal, on the ground that
the statute under which the indictment
was returned was one local to the District
Of Columbia. Price was then reindicted,
the second indictment being returned under
a general statute of the United States pro-
viding for offenses against the United
States. Upon this second indictment Judge
Brown granted the application for a war
rant of removal, and thereupon the
cused's attorney carried the case to the
circuit court of appeals.
In denying the az plication for warrant
of removal under the first indictment
Judge Brown based his decision on one
rendered by him in the case of the United
States against the late Charles A. Dana.
In that case, 1t will be remembered. 1t
was charged that Mr.. Dana had libeled
Mr.. Frank B. Noyes of this city in an
article published in the New York Sum-
Mr.. Dana, being resident of the city OF
New York, a copy of the indictment was
sent there and an application for war
RI MT of removal for trial here was based
thereon. Judge Brown, however denied
the application holding that section l014
of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, providing for the removal of
offenders from one federal jurisdiction to
another for trial. had no application in the
case. because. as the judge held. the
offense of libel was a local one, not being,
he decided, an offense in every place where
the United States has jurisdiction. In the
Dana case 1t was contended by the United
States attorney that the offense of libel
although a common law ofense. was
nevertheless an offense against the United
States in the District of Columbia, because
Congress, in specially legislating for the
District, had so declared. Upon an ample
apology on the part of Mr. Dana and
full retraction of the libelous publication
having been made by him, the indictment
was. upon the request of Mr.: Noyes. nolie
pressed by the attorney OF the United
States for the District of Columbia.
In the Price case, before the circuit court
of appeals the attorney of the United
States it is understood. admitted the in
dictment returned against the defendant
and pressed the charge against him under
the special statute. The attorney for the
United States, it appears. was sustained by
the decision of the circuit court of appeals,
Judge Browns decision in the Dana case
being reversed. Prices removal here for
trial WILL therefore, follow a matter of
course.
Speaking of the decision today. Mr.. Hugh
T. Taggart who has charge of the prepdra-
ton of indictments here and who was prom
inently engaged in the preparation of the
Dana case, said he was not aware of the de-
cision in the Price case until so informed by
a Star reporter. If, as IT appears. the decis
ion of Judge Brown in the case was revers-
ed said Mr. Taggart it would be very
gratifying to the office of the United States
attorney here. Mr.. Taggart said he has al
ways contended that Judge Brown was in
error in holding as he did in the Dana
case, and he could not well see how the
Judge made the mistake of holding that an
offense under a statute made by the Con-
gress. the law of the United States here
is not such an offense as to warrant the re-
moval for trial here of the offender I'm
til he could read the opinion of the circuit
court of appeals in the Price case Mr.. Tag
gart said he preferred to say nothing more