Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-04-04
DOES NOT APPLY
TO THE DISTRICT
Statement From Legal Source That
Criminal Appeals Act is Not
in Force Here.

later the act was repealed az to Infamous
crime; yet II the case should be one OF
conviction of crime infamous but not cap
ital, and 1t should involve questions re-
viewable under any one or more OF the
other classes the accused would still have
the right to a writ of error, notwtthstand-
ing the repeal. because the right OF review
would then be dependent not upon the
character of the crime or the case or the
nature Of the matter in dispute, but upon
such questions themselves: and hence the
case quite a broad right of appeal. 1t was
under this statute it Is remarked, that the
writs of error direct to the Supreme Court
were sued out in the well-known cases OF
Burton agt. the United States, in which
the court held that 1t had jurisdiction in
error notwithstanding the convictions were
Of crime held infamous in law because
the punishment might have been impr1son-
ment In the oenitentiary.
Does Not Apply to District.
The statute in question, however. gave
the United States no right Of appeal in
criminal cases; yet, 1t is added, II 1t had
been made applicable to the District of
Columbia, then, probably, section 935 of the
code would have extended to the govern
ment the same right of appeal that would
have been given to the accused. But
the decisions of the Supreme court it is
said, hold that the act does not apply to
this District, because it relates only to the
district and circuit courts of the United
States as such, and there are no such
courts here, although it Is entirely true that
the Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia possesses the same powers and ex-
ercises the same jurisdiction as such courts,
and the judges of the local Supreme Court,
In addition to the powers and jurisdiction
possessed and exercised by them as such,
severally possess the powers and exercise
the jurisdiction possessed and exercised by
the judges of the district and circuit courts.
Thus, 1t is explained 1t affirma lively ap-
pears that when the criminal appeals act
was approved, March 2. 1907, neither the
accused nor the United States had the
right to a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the United States in any purely
criminal case In this District; nor, it Is as
serted, does that act give such right, be-
cause In terms 1t only allows the United
States a writ of error from the district and
circuit courts as such; and the language
does not apply to any court in the District
of Columbia. The act does not extend to
the accused any right whatever to writ
of error.
For Review and Determination.
By section pa of the code, it is furthed
remarked, the Supreme Court require,
by certiorari or otherwise, any case made
final in the Court of Appeals to be certi-
fed to 1t for its review and determination.
with the same power and authority as If
the case had been carried up by appeal or
writ of error Under this law the Supreme
Court has the power to review any crimi-
nal case decided by the Court of Appeals
upon petition of either the government or
the accused but this right Of review is
conferred upon the court alone as of it's
discretion, and not upon the parties as Of
their right. So, too, the Supreme Court
can interfere by habeas corpus and dis
charge the accused In certain classes of
criminal cases; and further, statute can
easily be so worded that in criminal pros
ecution based upon it the matter in dis
pute will be entirely capable of pecuniary
estimation, and therefore subject to the
same right of review by the Supreme Court
on writ of error as in purely civil case
There is declared to be no good reason
why appeals and writs of error should not
lie from the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia direct to the Supreme Court
of the United States in the same important
classes of cases in which they 80 lie from
the district and circuit courts or at least
why they should not so lie from our Court
of Appeals nor is 1t said to be apparent
why the United States should not have the
same right to a writ of error in criminal
cases here as elsewhere and, in addition,
the same right to such writ as is given the
accused, such right of the government nee
essarily to be restricted so as not to i'm
pinge upon the federal Constitution