Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1913-10-27

men, or whether it shall be applied
| only to crush commercialism' i'll i'm
morally is the problem that is divia-
ing legislative and legal authorities.
There are many rneii of many minds
on this question.
The law in it's general aspects, a.;
approved June 25, 1910, contains The
phrase, "or for any other immoral
purposes" that provides the core of
the discussion as to the scope cf its
intent. Otherwise the aim Of the law
seems to be directed at clearly and
well defined commercial viciousness.
The Diggs-Caminetti case in San
Francisco proved an application OF the
Jaw to cases of personal escapade.
There was nothing in the testimony to
indicate that there was the least con-
nFercial purpose in the minds of the
defendants in transporting two girls
| into nearby state. Yet the jury con-
Ivicted under the literal construction
of the law, and the court accepted
the verdict and sentenced the prison
erS.
Jh3ge John C. Pollock, of the Fed
eral Court of Kansas, took an oppos-
ing view of the law. He held that
there could be no conviction under the
law except under proof of CONNER
cialism. The prisoner had pleaded
guilty, basing his plea on the verdict
in the Diggs-Caminetti case. He or
dere5 the plea changed to not guilty,
and finally discharged the prisoner.
The Diggs- Caminetti case will be
decided by the Supreme Court. The
case in which Judge Pollock rule3 also
has been appealed. Until these are
finally decided, the last construction
Of the law will remain in doubt.
Attorney General McReynolds is re-
garded as concurring in the view OF
the law taken by Judge Pollock, that
commercialism is essential, and that
the Mann law was not framed to regu-
late the morals of private individuals.
1t is expected that he will direct linn
tied States attorneys not to prosecute
unSer the law except where CONNER
cialism is clearly indicated; this he is
unlikely to do, however, unless the Su-
prcme Court takes the same view Of
the law
The father of the law, Representa-
tive James R. Mann, is not understood
to have intended to bring personal es~
capades within the scope OF the law.
Representative II. D. Clayton, chair
man, and Representative E. Y. Webb,
of the House Judiciary Committee.
which reported on the bill, are agreed
that the Mann law does not cover per-
sonal escapades.
But Representative John J. Esch, of
the majority of the committee, which
put the bill into its final form, thinks
that personal escapades are included
in the offenses banned by the law.
In his report on the bill Repre-
sentative Mann stated that it was
aimed at the traffic of white slavery
and not at individual iniquity; nor
was it intended to aid the states in the
excise of police powers. Representa-
tive w. c. Adamson, Representative
c. L. Bartlett and Representative
William Richardson, then of the COM
mittee,in a minority report objected to
it because of its interference with the
police affairs Of several states.
If the bill covered personal esca-
pades Representative Bartlett re-
CARDS it as unconstitutional. .Represen
tative Adamson does not believe that
Judge Pollock's view of the legisla-
ton, as applying only to commercial
cases, is correct. Representative Clay
ton thinks the bill was not aimed at
personal escapades.
So the divergence Of opinion re-
garSing the scope of the Mann lS
extends also into the Legislative, ju-
dicary and legal branches of the gov
ernment. 1t will not be clear until the
Supreme Court finds out its meaning
and whether that meaning is the law
Of the land.