Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-10-15

and seizures shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the person or things to be
seized
1T is urged that the requirement of pros
ecution by information under oath has been
repealed by the act of Congress of March
3, 1891. entitled An act to define the juris-
dction of the Police Court of the District of
Columbia, and a subsequent act amending
this act in each of which it was provided
that prosecutions in the Police Court shall
be by information by the proper prosecut-
Ing officer But neither of these acts ex-
pressly repealed the provision in question
and unless there is manifest inconsist-
ency between the two provisions the first
must stand.
No IncOnsistency.
1.-The natural construction Of the words
Information by proper prosecuting officer
in view of the provision Of the organic act
Is that information under oath is intended
There is no inconsistency between the two
If this last legislation had In plain terms
required prosecutions to be made by infor-
nation without oath it would have been in
violation of article of the amendments of
the Constitution first recited, for the or
ganic act authorizes the judges to issue
process of arrest upon information med,
and such warrant of arrest so issued would
not be supported by oath or information
In the absence of express terms in a stat
ute having that effect the court should not
give the statute such construction to in
volve a violation of the Constitution. Its
duty is to adopt that construction which
without doing violence to the fair meaning
of the words used brings the statute into
harmony with the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition
1T is further urged" Justice Bradley
went on to say, that although no warrant
of arrest could be issued upon such I'M
sworn information without violating the
constitutional rights Of the petitioners; yet
they being in custody, might be lawfully
prosecuted upon it, and the proceeding can
not be questioned under this writ The
swer to that proposition Is two-fold. First.
the Police Court is court Of special and
limited jurisdiction. The statute directs the
method in which that Jurisdiction Is to be
exercised, and such method Is necessarily
exclusive. The meaning of the word prose
cutionS' in the requirement that 'prOSecu-
lions shall be by information under oath
is the formal accusation OF crime. In this
country the modes of formal accusation OF
crime are by Indictment, by information and
by complaint Where q crime must be pros
ecuted by indictment and the prosecution 10
by Information the court exceeds Its Jurfs-
diction, and the conviction and sentence
thereon are void The only formal accuse
lions Of crime that the Police Court Is au-
thorized to try are informations under oath
by the proper prosecuting officer. Until such
In that court to try an alleged offender.
The filing Of such an information Is essen
tial to give the court jurtsdfction-as 1t Is
the only means prescribed by which the
person and the case can be presented to the
court for trial-it is the only due course or
law to that end in that court. The question
of the jurisdiction OF the court imposing the
sentence Is open to inquiry in proceeding
in habeas corpus. If for any reason the
court was without jurisdiction the Judgment
is void, and 1t may be questioned In this
proceeding.
Another Phase.
.Second-If ii ibe conceded that where
party is actually in custody and in the
presence of the court that 1t would be
useless and idle formality to issue a war
rant Of arrest and take him formally into
custody under that warrant. yet there
must be some formal substantive accusa-
ton to justify the detention of supposed
offender, and, although he is in custody.
that formal accusation should contain all
of the elements of substance and form that
under the Constitution and laws are essen
tial to the exercise of the power to issue a
warrant of arrest. Otherwise the safe
guards provided by the Constitution and
and seizures would be of no value to the
individual unlawfully arrested or detained
In custody, save as justification for
civil action for damages for false arrest
1T has been repeatedly held that such
a provision of the Constitution as article
4 of the amendments requires that the in
formation must be either under oath or
supported by an affidavit in some form,
stating the facts Of the charge"
Counsel for the District of Columbia noted
an appeal from the ruling, 1t being ex-
planned that the appeal will not be pushed
unless 1t should be found that the decision
of Justice Bradley would tend to have
far-reaching effect regarding certain pre-
vious convictions in the Police Court.