Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1917-01-16
Sunreme Court Holds Mann Law Means Exactly
 What It Says.
CAM1NETTI, DIGGS
 HAYS FACE PRISON
Fact That Women Are AccOmplices, or That No Financial Gain C0ntem- plated, Immaterial, Declares
 the High Court.

Washington, Jan. 15.-The federal "white slave" law was construed by the supreme court today to prohibit interstate transportation of women for any immoral purpose, inquding personal escapades, as well as con- mercialized vice.
 In three test cases, the court, in divided opinion, affirmed the convic- tion of F. Drew Caminetti and Muary I. Diggs of Sacramento, Cal, and L. T. Hays of Ava. Okla. Their impris- onment sentence and fines will be- come effective within 30 days. The court divided five to three in broadly interpreting the law enacted in 1910. Chief Justice White and Justice Me- Kenna and Clark, in a minority opin- ion, holding that congress intended +c have the law apply only to actual traffic" in women and not to person al immortality. Justice McReynolds who was attorney general during the prosecution of Caminetti and Diggs took no part in the cases. The ma jority, given by Justice Day, held that 1 while oiongress may have intended the l law to prohibit only traffic in women l for pecuniary gain, it's plain terms l included interdiction of their trans
 portation "for any immoral purpose" 1 If it was not so intended, the majority opinion said, it was congress func-
 tion to amend the law. and not the
 courts,
 "The plain terms of the act must
 take precedence over the designation
 and the report that accompanied it to
 congress-" said Justice Day. "1t IS ] said it will open the door to blackmail l but that is to be considered by con- k gress. We think the power of congress l to regulate transportation of passen- l gers affords ample basis to exercise i authority in the q dase of this statute. y Justice McKennan announced the l dissent, but did not deliver any opin ] ion.
 Courts Opinion.
 l Justice Days majority opinion l said:
 "In none of the cases was it 1 charged or proved that the transpor- l tation (of the women ihvolved) was l for gain or for the purpose of furnish ing women for prostitution for hire. There is no ambiguity in the terms l meaning Of statute must in the first instance be sought in the language of
 the act as framed and if that is plain the sole function of the courts is to
 enforce it according to its terms. ITO cause a woman to be transport l ed for debauchery or for an immoral l purpose, for which Diggs and Can't l netti were convicted, would seem by ] the very statement of the facts to em-
 brace transportation for purposes de- l nounced by the act While such inn
 moral purposes would be culpable Il
 morals, if accompanied with expecta'
 tion of gain, such considerations dc
 not prevent the lesser oifense against
 morals from the execution of purposes
 within the meaning Of the law. Tl
 say to the contrary would shock tho
 common understanding of what con" Stitutes an immoral purpose Whether the women involved be
 came technically accomplices, arguec l in behalf of the three defendants, was
 not directly deotded by the court. Il
 disposes of that feature as follows: Tt is urged as a further ground o1 reversal of the judgment below, thu 1
 that the testimony of the two girls was that of accomplices and to b.
 received with great caution and be lieved only when corroborated b!
 other testimony adducel in the case. While this is so, there is no abso
 lute rule of law preventing convic tions on the testimony of aqcomplices
 if iuries believe them."
 In conclusion the court said: Much is said about the characte of the testimony adduced and as 4 certain facts, tending to establish tn. guilt or innocence of the accused This court does not weigh the evi dence in proceeding of this charac ter and it is enough to say that ther was substantial testimony tending t support the verdict rendered in tn trial courts"
 Although the supreme court ha previously upheld constitutionality C (Continued on page five.)