The Washington times., 1902-01-10
LEGALITY OF
JURY PANELS.
Opinions Differ Regarding
Effectiveness Of Law.
TRIALS CONTINUED BY CONSENT.
Jurors Excused Until the status Can
BE decentralization Under
Sentence May BE Retricd-RcsoIu-
tion Signed by President on
Wednesday,.


Wednesday.
Are the jurors serving in the different
branches of the Supreme Court of the
District legally empaneled?" is the ques-
tion which was discussed yesterday by
the members of the local bar.
The question was debated by the justices
of the court at a meeting held yester
day at 1890 p m. No definite conclusion
was reached.
4 Division of Opinion.
The members of the bar are divided
upon the subject. and in all probab biiity
it will not be settled until it is tested in
the local courts. This will likely be done
today, either by writ of habeas corpus
iR the case of Andrew Pryor, colored,
who was convicted in Criminal Court
No. and sentenced TO Imprisonment for
year and a day in the penitentiary, or
else by motion to quash the whole panel
in the first case which is called for trial
in Criminal Court No. 1.
The seriousness of the situation was
commented upon yesterday morning by
Chief Justice Bingham presiding in Cir
cult Court No. l.
Continued by Mutual Consent.
Just before the hearing in the suit OF
Wolff against the District, commenced on
Wednesday. was begun the Chief Justice
called attention to the fact that the le-
gality of the jures serving in the courts
had been questioned. and advised that
the case be continued Or!y by consent OF
counsel on either side.
Mr. A. B. DuYall. representing the Dis
trict and Messrs. Baker and Cuttings.
counsel for the plaintiff, stated that they
were willing that the jurors empaneled
render a verdict in the case. and also
stated that they would not at later time
question the legality of the panel.
Arrangement Not Always Proper.
This arrangeme4 could easily be made
in civil cases. the court stated. but in
criminal cases it was more serious.
Justice Anderson presided in Criminal
Court No. l. but excused the jury until
today. in order that the question of the
legality of the jury might be considered.
District Attorney Gould is very anx-
ious that the matter be settled at once
and will not place any obstacle in the
way of having the matter brought to
test. With this in view he has set sew
eral cases for trial today. and there is
little doubt that the legality of the jury
will be raised.
The Jury Excused.
In the Police Court the same course
was taken by the presiding judge as was
by Justice Anderson, except that the jury
was excused for longer time.
Another question to be considered in
connection with the legality of the juries
as now constituted both in the Supreme
Court of the District and the Police Court
is their pay for the time they have
served. II il is determined by the courts
that they have been summoned to serve
without warrant of law, then they are
not entitled to be paid for jury service.
This question would have to be settled be-
fore the Court of Claims.
May BE Retired.
In discussing the result of the trial of
Bessie Harris in Criminal Court No. l, on
Wednesday, it is contended by some that
If the twelve men who declared her guilty
had no authority in law to do so she may
be put on trial again for the same offence.
The same, it is said, holds good in the
case OF man who was acquitted in the
Police Court yesterday. II the twelve
were without authority to do so. it is
claimed that he may be called to trial
again.
The juries now serving in the Supreme
Court Of the District and the Police Court
were summoned and empaneled under the
authority of a joint resolution passed by
Congress on December Il last. The reso-
luton, however, was not signed by the
President of the Senate until January G.
and not approved by President Roosevelt
until Wednesday night, after Bessie Har-
ris was convicted.
Jurors for January.
The resolution proposed to provide for
the drawing OF juries to serve in the Su-
preme Court of the District and the Police
Court during the month OF January.
II will be seen, however, that the juries |
were drawn and empaneled before the |
joint resolution providing for their be- |
ing drawn had become a law by having |
the signature of the President attached |
On this point, however, there is a diff
ference of opinion. Many contend that
the resolution was as of full force i'm
mediately upon its passage, while others
claim il was of no force until it had
been signed.
The Jcint Resolution.
The joint resolution under which the
juries for the present term OF court were
drawn is as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives OF the United State of
America in Congress assembled. That
the following amendment is hereby made
to an act Of Congress entitled An act to
establish a code OF law for the District |
os Columbia, approved March 3. 1901: !
Amend section 20i by striking out in the |
second line thereof the word one and |
inserting In lieu thereof the word 'two: |
also by adding to said section the follow >
ing:
Provided, that all grand and petit |
1uries OF the Supreme Court of the Dis |
trict OF Columbia and all petit juries in |
the Police Court OF said District which |
shall have been organized or drawn under |
existing laws at the time this code goes |
into effect shall serve out their respective |
terms, ard vacancies therein shall be |
filled under existing laws "
According TO the Constitution of the |
United States the procedure regarding |
the adoption of acts and resolutions is:
Provisions for Signing.
every bill which shall have passed |
the House OF Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it becomes a law,
he presented to the President.
II he approve. he shall sign it, but IL not,
he shall return it. with his objections.
TO that house in which it shall have orig
mated, who shall enter Inc objections at
large on their journal and proceed 20 re-
consider il. IT, after such recons. .Iera-
81, f.,,. CHI. |