The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-03

though amended and improved with many
patches on the old garment, represent the
same threadbare texture of criminal law
as three-quarters of century ago. The adj
ditions which have been made from time to
time by special acts of Congress have not
been incorporated in the body of the code
and are not sufficient to make a symmetri-
cal instrument.
IMPORTANT OMISSIONS.
There are also very startling omissions.
The Importance of these omissions is seen
when we remember that the United States
does not recognize any common-law crimes.
Unless crime is actually defined and pun
ishment prescribed by statute it is not
crime under the United States law. One of
the gravest omissions is the failure to de-
nounce and punish robbery and assault to
Kill, when committed on land, although
these offenses are punishable when COM
mitted on the water. The only way to cover
such omissions in the past has been to fall
back upon provision Of the crimes act Of
1925. that if any offense were committed in
any place ceded to or under the jurisdiction
of the United Staes, the punishment of
which is not provided for by any law of
the United States. it should receive the
punishment prescribed for like offenses by
the laws of the State in which the place is
situated. But this provision did not relieve
the difficulty. 1t created others. The ques-
ton arose, did it apply only ID state laws
in force in 1925 when thai provision was
made or did it include subsequent legisia-
ton; did it apply to legislation that had
been repealed; did it apply to places coded
to the United States prior to it's enactment?
Decisions rendered by the United States
courts showed the inadequacy of the provi-
sion; subsequent efforts of Congress to
remedy it have not been successful. Con-
tradctions and complications still occur.
If all state laws were uniform throughout
the country there would be less objection to
appealing to a local code to find punish
ment for an offense against the Nation;
but when we consider the variations and
contradictions in the definition and pun
ishment Of crime under different state
laws, it is clear there can be no equality in
applying them. Why should the United
States punish offenders ten or fifteen diff
ferent ways, or, possibly, forty-five differ
ent ways, according to the States In which
they happen to reside? The criminal law
OF the Nation OuSul HOl " NC II dlicu vi
geographical lines. The United States
ought to have one code. instead of forty
five, and that code should be as complete
and as perfect as that of any nation in the
world. Instead of depending upon the sepa-
rate States to fill out its deficiencies, the
code of the Nation should be a model
which the States might initiate.
1t is gratifying to know, therefore, that
the commission appointed by Congress to
revise and codfy the criminal and penal
code of the United States has made its re-
port to the attorney general, which will
furnish the basis of congressional action at
the sext session. The commission, consist
ing of Hon. Alexander c. Botkin. of Mon
tana; Hon. David X. Watson. Of Ohio, and
Hon. William d. Bynum. of Indiana, have
ranged through all the laws of the United
States. and sought to make a code which
should be comprehensive. symmetrical and
consistent; and in the adjustment of pen
alties they have tried to keep abreast with
the advanced stage of modern penology
Copies OF the projected code have been
sent to prominent jurists in Europe, as well
as the United States, who are studying il
with much interest. and from whom may
come valuable suggestions. The commits
sion has been limited by the act which Gre
ated it. 1t has introduced no startling in
novations. The task has been one of great
difficulty The commissioners have recog-
nized some changes as desirable which
they have not seen their way clear TO en-