The Washington times., 1902-01-11
JURY LAW NOW
BEING TESTED.
Argument to Be Heard
Tuesday Next.
ATTORNEY GOULD TAKES ACTION.
William Clark. Indicted by the New
Grand Jury. ArraiSncd for Trial
Prisoners Attorneys Attack Le-
Eniity of the Finding Court of
Appeals to Decide.

| decisive step was taken yesterday b,
District Attorney Ashley NJ. Gould tt
clear away the doubt relative TO the legal
| ity OF the juries now serving in the diff.
ferent branches of the Supreme Court O
| the District and the Police Court
As result of the course he pursued the
matter will be argued before the Court o
| Appeals on Tuesday next on a special ap-
| peal taken in the case OF William Clark
| indicted yesterday for larceny from the
person.
The Opposing Attorneys.
The proposition that the juries serving
| in the different branches of the court are
not legally drawn and organized will be
| upheld by Mr.. r. Ross Perry, of the firm
of r. Ross Perry &: Son, and d. W. Baker
OF the firm of Lambert & Baker. These
gentlemen were appointed by Justice An
derson as counsel for Clark, in order that
the question of the proper formation OF
| the juries may be fully argued before the
Court of Appeals.
There were no jury trials in either
branch of the Criminal Court yesterday
although several cases We're set for hear
ing in Criminal Court No. l. In that
court Attorney Charles G. McRoberts,
representing Bessie Harris. who was con-
victed on Wednesday, filed motion for a
new trial and arrest of judgment, but
later in the day, when 1t was decided that
Mr.. Perry and Mr.. Baker would make a
test of the constitutionality of the draw
ing of the juries in the case of William
Clark, the motion was withdrawn.
Majority Believe Juries Illegal.
The situation with reference to the
juries was generally discussed by the
members of the bar. decided ma ajority
of those who were asked to express an
opinion on the subject, while not wanting
to be quoted. stated that they have no
doubt that the juries are not qualified to
serve under the law.
In connection with this subject the
opinion was also expressed that if the
resolution suggested by John r. Young,
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict. had been passed there would be no
doubt of the legality of the juries. The
resolution Proposed and drafted by Mr..
Young proVISed that the juries be drawn
as provided by law in force in said Dis
trict prioF to the first day of January,
1902
The Joint Resolution.
This language, it is said. cannot be mis-
tanen, and would have settled the matter
finally if the resolution had been adopted
instead of the one which passed both
houses of Congress on December II last.
The language of the joint resolution
passed by Congress, it is contended, is
liable TO more than one construction. 1t
is that all grand and petit juries in the
Supreme Court of the Distric' and all the
petit juries in the Police Court of the said
District which shall have been organized
or drawn under the existing laws at the
time this code gees into effect shall serve
out their terms, and vacancies be filled
under existing laws
The joint resolution Just referred TO,
and under the authority of which the ju
res now serving were organized, was not
signed by the President until Wednesday
night, January s. 1t is argued that the
life. existence, and force OF the resolu-
tion commenced at that time. Therefore
it is argued that the resolution would not
give force or life to law which died by
repeal on December 81 last, because it
could not give life before the resolution
itself had been created.
On the other hand, it is contended that
the intention of the resolution is clearly
to be retroactive, and the courts will be
asked to SO construe it. Against this
the decision of the United States Supreme
Court is cited, where, in the case of VIII
liam strother, it held that the meaning
OF statute is what 1t states and nothing
more.
When II was discovered yesterday morn
ing that the question raised as 10 the
legality of the juries serving in the Grim
inal Courts was calculated to greatly re-
tard business, District Attorney Gould de-
termined to have the matter settled as
quickly as possible. He therefore called
upon the new grand jury for a report,
and it returned an indictment against
William Clark, coiored, charged with lar
ceny from the person.
Clark ArrSigned for Trial.
Clark was Immediately called for ar
and Mr.. Baker was present TO
represent him. Clark was perhaps the
most frightened prisoner who ever came
to the bar for arraignment. He was
at loss as to what was going
on, and he could not have looked moro
miserable if he were standing for sentence
for the crime of murder.
When Clark was called upon to answer
to the Indictment Mr.. Baker rose and
fled a plea in abatement TO the indict
ment. District Attorney Gould then filed
a demurrer to the plea. which was, with |
oGt argument, sustained by Justice An
ierson, who was presiding.
Notice of Appeal.
Mr. Baker then gave notice of appeal |
rom the judgment rendered. MIR. Gould |
md Mr Baker then called upon the JUS |
Ices of the Court of Appeals for the Dis |
rct. and arrangements were made to |
iear argument of the question on Tues
lay next.
The plea in abatement fled by Messrs. |
Perry and Baker, in behalf of Clark. is
is follows:
Now comes the defendant, who says
hat the said United States ought not to