The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1914-04-02
Ed TO II / A L . .
FAR REACHING COURT DECISIONS

Asst August, Judge Sanborn, sitting in
the United States circuit court at st.
Paul. handed down decision in the case
of the government VS.. Stevens to the ef-
TIT feet that where man is charged with
III crime, and is indicted upon several
III counts, and is tried and convicted upon
II one of those counts, the courts cannot
legally hold him for the others; that the
II accused cannot be legally tried convicted
and imprisoned twice for the one offense.
On the heels of this very important
decision comes another, handed down
last week at Harrisburg, which goes
step further and clearly shows that it is not the
purpose of the law to persecute wrong doors, nor
to permit its agents to do so.
William Craigmore was accused, indicted,
tried and found guilty of violating the Mann act;
having brought young woman from Delaware to
the Pennsylvania town and registered at hotel
with her as man and wife. He sentenced to
sixty days in the county Jail; the circumstances
surrounding the seemingly warranting light
sentence. Upon his release, the county authori-
ties had him arrested on charge of adultery.
His attorney moved to quash the Indictment, mas
much as Craigmore had already served sentence
for the ofense charged against him. The motion
sentenced to the state penitentiary. His attorney
took an appeal to the state of appeals, and
decision has been handed down in which all the
judges of that tribunal concur: that court has
right to convict man for crime committed sim
ultaneously with one for which he has already
paid penalty; that where one offense cannot be
committed without the other, it shall be, and is,
considered in the eyes of the law as ONE CRIME
NJ hoI1 butt Tbo ind nd
that were the lines not drawn and clearly defined
in such cases as that in point, the prosecution
could, if it so desired, make three different subse
quent charges against the defendant, all growing
out of one ofense; and keep him confined for a
period covering more than thirty years.
The effect of these court decisions will mean
much to men who face the courts in the future,
and WILL to great degree, eliminate the power of
over Jealous prosecutors, whO ii given free reign,
would not hesitate to keep accused
fined practically the best days of his life for the
commission of one crime. But what effect will
they have upon the many men who
ing second and third sentences for the one crime?
We mean those who are without friends and mon
ey, and thereby lack the required means to have
their cases opened in the proper courts and re-
ceive the justice these court decisions intend they
shall receive? Must these 60 on serving their
terms to the end merely because they lack
friends, money and outside influence to bring
their to the attention of the courts? Must
they continue to suffer penalty which the law, as
now interpreted, says is grossly illegal? Does not
this condition furnish another evidence of the al
most absolute necessity for the employment of at
torneys for imprisoned men, as suggested and
recommended by the chairman of our Board of
Control Mr.. c. E. Vasaly?
Let us hope, for the sake of justice, that the
next legislature may act favoraby upon this
recommendation.