Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-07-20
q. s: District Attorney Baker
Writes Strong Letter.
URGES ACTION AT THIS TINE
Representative Smiths Amendment
to House Bill Ruled Out, But
Gives Notice of Future Action.

To give the Juvenile Court of the Dis
trict concurrent jurisdiction with the GRIM
inal court in non-support cases was the
object OF an amendment proposed yester-
day In the House.to the deficiency bill by
Representative Smith OF Michigan. but
ruled out on a point of order. Mr.. Sraith
gave notice that the committee on the
District of Columbia will take up this prop
osition at the next session OF Congress
and report q bill making the change.
a letter from United States District At
torney Baker to the Attorney General.
which had been forwarded to Mr.. Smith,
was read. strongly urging the action at
this time. Mr.. Smith called attention to
the fact that as there is only one judge
now sitting, i'm the criminal court. with
no opportunity for jury trials for months
to come. there will probably be no en-
forcement of the law during that time.
Mr.. Bakers Letter.
The letter from Mr. Baker follows:
Il respectfully recommend that an eff
fort be made to obtain from Congress. at
the earliest possible date, an act amend
ing the act of March %, 1906, making ii a
misdemeanor in the District of Columbia
to abandon or willfully neglect to provide
for the support and maintenance by any
person Of his wife or of his or her minor
children in destitute and necessitous cir
cumstances. SO as 10 confer upon the Jul
venile Court tcreated by the act OF March
10. 1905 jurisdiction to hear and de-
termine cases under this act. and I in
close herewith form for such proposed
bill.
This amendment is desired on account
Of two recent decisions Of the Supreme
Court of the District Of Columbia, one in
the case Of United States VS.. Leo s. West,
at law No. 5144l. which was a case of a
writ of certiorari issued to the Juvenile
Court to determine whether not the
Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over a
case involving the desertion ny husband
of his wife where there were no children.
Question Of Jurisdiction Argued.
This Office, together with the corpora
ton counsers office of the District of CO.
States and argued that the act of March
%, 1906. under which this prosecution
originated in the Juvenile Court, conferred
jurisdiction upon the Juvenile Court be-
cause it was an act in pari materia with
the class of cases which had already been
intrusted to the Juvenile Court by the
act of March 10. 1895 The Supreme
Court OF the District of Columbia, acting
through Wendell F. Stafford, decided that
the Juvenile Court had no Jurisdiction Of
case in which wife was deserted by
her husband where there were no chill
dren, under this act of March %, 1905.
There was another case argued and
submitted in the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia on petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. This is the
case of Otto I.inaweaver. habeas curpus,
No 4SS. The petition was filed to release
Otto LinaWeaver from the workhouse of
the District of Columbia. and in the
petition 1t was alleged that the warrant
of commitment of the Juvenile Court
under which the said Linaweaver was
committed was null and void. Said Lima
weaver was serving the sentence in the
workhouse of the District of Columbia
for failure to support his wife and minor
child, under the age of sixteen years,
to wit, of the age of one year. as pro-
vided in the act of March %. 1906
Courts Action Without Authority.
Chief Justice Clabaugh has announced
in this case that his opinion will fol-
low the decision of Judge Stafford in
the case just cited of Leo 8. West, and
that he will discharge Otto I4inaweaver
from the custody of the superintendent
of the workhouse on the ground that
the action OF the Juvenile Court was
without authority.
These two decisions strip the Juvenile
Court of Jurisdiction under the act OF
March %, 1906. l have applied for spe-
cial appeal to the Court of Appeals Of the
District OF Columbia from the order in
the case of Leo s. West, and as soon as
Chief Justice Clabaugh has signed an or
der In the case of Otto Linaweaver / will
appeal also from his decision in that case.
1T seems to me almost self-evidenf that
Congress intended that the Juvenile Court
should have Jurisdiction over this class of
offenses provided for in the act of March
%, 1906. The machinery provided for by
Congress for the Juvenile Court Is one
peculiarly adapted for handling this class
Of cases.. and there Is now collected and
disbursed in the Juvenile Court over 81 900
week from delinquent husbands and
fathers. 1t would be most unfortunate
occurrence were this court to be deprived
of that class of cases which 1t has han
died most satisfactorily up to the pres
ent time