New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-01
TITO PHILIPPINE DECISIONS.

The decisions LANDED down by the Supreme
Court Yesterday on questions or Phlllpplhe crlln
.nal law are apparently In curious conuaolcuOh
The full opinions showing how the results were
reached viii be awaited with Interest, Tor the
justices who might seem 10 be on both SIDES or
The constitutional question, as Justice Brown
was by ignorant critics said TO be in the original
fnsular cases, doubtless have a consistent theory
of the general principles feel bound by tech
meal issues IA their decision. One case involves
the operation IN the Philippines Of the consti-
tutional prohibition in the Fifth Amendment
against & persons being twice put in jeopardy
for the same offence. The other involves the
operation there OF the Sixth Amendment giving
the right of trial by jury IN all criminal prose
cutions. In the frst case an appeal by the gov
ernuent from an acquittal IN a lower court, as
permitted by Philippine law handed down from
The tine OF Spanish domination is disallowed
In The other il is held that defendant in a
criminal case is not entitled TO trial by jury in
The absence OF Congressional action establishing
the right in the philippines
In the appeal case all the justices who were
sitting IN the original insular cases stand by
the convictions then announced. The Chief JUS
tice and Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham
hold that the constitutional guarantee operates
IN favor OF the Eilipinos. while Justices Brown,
White and McKenna hold that It does not ex-
IS proper. With them stands Justice Day, the
successor OF Justice Shiras, who was also on
that side The balance OF power is held by
Justice Holmes, the successor OF Justice Gray,
one OF the majority in holding that the Con-
stitution did not extend e1 proprio vigore TO the
islands. Justice Holmes, however is found
with the former minority, converting It on this
particular question into majority.
Justices Brown, White, McKenna and Day
are still firm for the plenary power Of the gov
eminent on the question of jury trial, and JUS
tice Harlan is firm as ever in holding that
the Fiipinos are entitled TO jury trial as well
ae the other guarantees OF the Constitution. For
tic other justices however there is a new
alignment. Justices Holmes, Brewer Peekham
and Chief Justice Fuller, after holding that a
man cannot be put twice in jeopardy curiously
enough decide that he is not entitled TO the iury
irlai established by the same Constitution Jus
nee Holmes appears 10 have adopted the view
OF the so-called 'imperialist judges" on the
question, while the Chief Justice and Justices
Brewer and Peckham concur in their result for
different reasons
The dispatches do not explain how Justica
holmes reconciies the extension of one and tho
denial OF the other constitutional right TO the
fiiipinos. Perhaps II is on the theory of Just,ce
Hrown In the insular cases, that while the Con
sutution IN fits specific provisions does NOS er-
tend TO the Philippines. yet the inhabitants no
moi without tho fundamental guarantees OF civil
liberty which, back OF all CONSTITUTIONS ara ,ho
essence OF Anglo Saxon law. The const,tuttona,
Jury u,si Is method OF procedure adapted only
% particular conditions Of society. 1t did not