Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-06-01
NOT INHERENT RIGHT
Filipino Editors Claim to Be
Tried by Jury.
SUPREME COURTS VIEW
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE
HARLAN,
Street Railway Fares in Cleveland
Reduction Of Rates Was Violation
of Agreement-other Gases.

OF Agreement-Other Cases.
Opinions were handed down yesterday in
the United States Supreme Court as an
noUnced IN The Star in three cases involv-
Ing questions pertaining to administration
of criminal law in the Philippine Islands.
The points raised were as to the right of
the government to take appeal in criminal
cases and of an accused person to demand
trial by Jury.
The first case was that of Kepner agt.
the United States. Kepner practiced law in
Manila, and was charged with embezzIe-
ment. The court of the first instance ac-
quilted him. but the supreme court of the
islands convicted him. The case was then
appealed to the United States Supreme
Court by Kepner, on the ground that by the
process OF appeal he was put twice in
jeopardy contrary to the Constitution of the
United States. The opinion by Justice Day
sustained this view. reversing the decision
Of the Philippine supreme court. Justices
Brown. White and McKenna dissented.
Right Of Trial by Jury.
The case of Mendazona VS.. the United
States, involving the same question, was
similarly decided In favor Of Mendazona.
Another Philippine case was that of Dorr
ton of the right Of a defendant in a COM
mercial case to demand trial by jury In
the Philippines In the absence Of congress
sional enactment granting such right The
court held that the constitution does not
carry the right without legislative enact
nent. Dorr and O'Brien are the editors of
newspaper published in Manila and
were prosecuted for criminal libel.
The chief justice and Justices Brewer and
Peckham united In an opinion concurring in
this result, but stating different grounds
Justice Harlan delivered vigorous dis
sent1ng opinion, saying that the opinion is
contrary to the established system of the
United States and declaring the opinion of
the court to be in effect an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.
Justice Days Statement.
In denying the right of trial by jury. de-
manded by Dorr and O'Brien, Justice Day
first laid down these conclusions as being
established:
That the Constitution of the United States
is the only source Of power authorizing ac-
ton by any branch of the federal govern
ment. That the government may acquire
territory as sovereign nation and make
all needful rules and regulations for the
government OF the same. That this terri
tory may be possessed and still not incor-
porated In the body polite. While the ter
rltory Is In this condition, thus held,
Congress has the right, subject to the re-
needful rules and regulations for its gov
eminent. That the treaty of Paris ceding
the Philippines to the United States, ex-
pressly states in article 8 that the civil
rights and political status of the islands
shall be determined and fixed by Congress
We think" the opinion continued, that
so far as territory Is outlying and not In
corporated, Congress is not required to set
up trial by jury" and in this connection
Justice Day observed that the President
had been careful to reserve the right Of
trial by jury from the recommendations
for legislation made. However. the opin-
ION added, there had been guaranteed to
the Filipino the right Of the accused to be
heard by himself and counsel; to have a
speedy and public trial; to meet his wit
nesses face to face, and further that no
person should be held to answer for GRIM
tnal offense without due process of law, or
be put twice in jeopardy for the same Of
Tense.
Justice Harlan's Dissent.
In his dissenting opinion Justice Harlan
said that where the rights Of 100000 peo-
pie were involved he felt constrained to
dissent.
He did not believe that the provision Of
the federal Constitution as to grand and
petit juries related to mere methods Of pro-
cedure and were not fundamental in their
nature.
1.-THE Constitution declares that no per-
SON mot no American citiZenD shall be
held to answer for a capital or otherwise
Infamous crime except on presentment or
Indictment of grand jury. and the unani-
nous verdict of petit jury composed Of
twelve persons. The conclusion reached by
the court Is so obviously forbidden by the
Constitution that cannot regard the judg-
ment of this court otherwise than as
amendment to the Constitution by judicial
action. when another mode of amendment
is expressly provided for In that instru-
nent."
Cleveland Street Railway Fares.
The court affirmed the decision of the
United Stotes circuit court for the north
ern District of Ohio in the Cleveland (Ohfo)
street railway fare cases. The opinion was
delivered by Justice White and was favor
able to the railway.
The cases involved the validity of the or
dinance rassed by the city council of Cleve-
land in 1898 fixing the rate of fare on the
street railways at cents cash or tickets
for % cents. The ordinance was attacked
on the ground that 1t constituted viola
ton of contract and the court in opinion
by Justice White neld that the coasolida-
ton ordinance of 1855 fixing fares at g.
cents constituted contract binding both on
the city and the railway companies. Tho
court said THAI by the consolidation ordi-
nance rates of fare were fixed for stated
time and no reservation was made of a
right to alter BY those ordinances exist
ing rights of the corporations were sur
rendered, BENEFITS were conferred on tho
PuDllc ana ODllSatlOlS Werc imposed on the
corporations to continue those benefits DUR
ing athe stipulated time. These considera-1
tons ard the fact that written accept
anee by the corporation of the ordinance
was required forced the conclusion that the
ordinances were intended to be agreements
binding en- both parties definitely fixing the
rates of fare which might be thereafter
charged. -4,
The Postmaster General Sustained.
Justice Brown delivered the opinion of
the court in the case of the public clear
ing house vs. T. e. Coyne, postmaster at
Chicago. The case was brought to en-
join the enforcement of a fraud order pro-
hibiting the delivery Of mail matter ad-
dressed to the clearing house, which had
a. cooperative scheme by which it prom
ised large returns to subscribers. They
were required to pay So cash and 81
month for sixty months. with the promise
of large returns at the end of that time.
The court held that the Postmaster Gen.
eral had not exceeded his authority In IS
suing the order, saying that the success
of the enterprise depended on getting
constantly increasing number of subscribe
ers, with the certainty that those who
bold nv, IN tho In OF would lose hair r,aopov +