The Sentinel=record., 1910-01-27

federal courts, the question is a broad on. In this case we have an alleged libel that was published in New York city and sent out into Orange county.
 But we find that in the distribution made in Orange county it happened to be disseminated at West Point, a territory ceded to the government, and therefore the action comes up in this court.
 Tt cannot be denied that, by the same act, a crime may be committed, cognizable by the state and the na- tion, but this affords no reason to con- fine the punishment of the offender to one jurisdiction The law which has been invoked here is, take it, simply territorial convenience and therefore, in this case if any crime has ben committed. it is to be regard ed rather as an offense against the state of New York, which happened to be committed on government land than an ohense against the govern nent under the statute.
 The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to show that it was the intent of congress to inirust to the courts of the United States the punishment of offenses other than those primarily committed on United Sgates territory"
 Judge Hough in his decision held that libel was punishable by state laws and was not one of the crimes referred to in the federal statutes passed from 1925 to 1898. making state penal codes applicable to or lenses on federal territory
 q am clear said Judge Hough that the construction of the act Of 1898 proposed by the prosecution m this case, is contrary to the spirit which actuated the members of con gress in passing this law As this very interesting question can be de- cided promptly by presentation to the supreme court of the United States I believe that before the time of me coat and the jury is occupied with going into the matter, the question of law hanging over the whole mat ter should be cleared up
 "It is ordered that the judgment of this court be entered quashing the in dictmet herein, because the indict- ment is not sufficiently authorized by the statute upon which it rests
 At the outset, Judge Hough remark ed that he was releived of much re- sponsibility through the fact that his decision could be speedily appeasei.
 The judge declined to take up the question whether the sending of lihel- ous writing to the federal reserve constituted libel there, but he did take up the question whether such an cffense was recognizable in federal courts. The act of 1898, which allow. cd the federal cour. to take over the persl code of the state of New York in some cases, created douhla lia- nility for offenses
 The jurisdiction of any federal court below the supreme court. now ever. is statutocy and must be based on an act of congress.
 "It may happen" said the judge, that man who breaks into store may at the same time be violating the postoffice laws, and that forger may come under the national banking laws. In such cases there can be no question that the offender is subject to both jurisdictions and to two pun ishments.
 Tt may be thought that libel is against the dignity of the United States, but such thought has not found expression in a United States statute, therefore 1t is merely an Of fense against the common law of the state of New York"