Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1917-01-20
D|GGS AND CAM|NET|
CONVICTIONS ARE
AFFIRMED

Interpreting the Mann white slave
law. the United States Supreme Court
has decided that prosecutions under
the law for transporting women in
interstate commerce are not limited tC
commercialized vice, and include per
'onal immoral escapades.
Conviction of + Drew Caminett
ind Maury |. Diggs of Sacramento
vas affirmed
The court was divided. The ma
lority opinion was given by Justict
Day. Chief Justice White and Jus
ices McKenna and Clark dissented
Justice Reynolds took no part in con
,ideration of the cases.
The plain terms of the act must
axe precedence over the designation
and the report that accompanied it t
Congress-" said Justice Day. 1T
aid it will open the door to blackmail
)ut that is to be considered by Con
sress. We think the power OF Con
yress to regulate transportation o
passengers affords ample basis to ex
RISE authority in the case of this
tatute.
Following Interpretation of the
Mann act, the court also affirmed con
iction of I. l.. Hayes of Alva, Okla
Justice Days majority opinion said
In none OF the cases was it charged
lr proved that the TRANSPORTATION (oi
he women involved was for gain or
or the purpose of furnishing women
or prostitution or hire.
There is no ambiguity in the terms
# this act. 1t is elementary that the
meaning of statute must in the firsl
Instance be sought in the language OF
he act as framed and if that is plan
he sole function OF the court is tt
,nforce it according to its terms.
TO cause a woman to be trans ort
ID for debauchery or for immoral
purpose, for which Diggs and Cami
letti were convicted, would seem by
he very statement of the facts tC
embrace transportation for purpose
denounced by the act
while such immoral purpose woulC
1e more culpable in morals if accom-
sanied with expectation OF gain, such
considerations do not prevent the
esser offensive against morals from
he execution of purposes within tn
meaning OF the law. To say to tn
contrary would shock the common un
lerstanding of what constitutes i'm
moral purpose"
Whether the women involved be
anne technically accomplices argued
n behalf of the three defendants, wa
not directly decided by the court. II
disposed of trat feature as follows:
1T is argued as further grounG
'or the reversal of the judgments be
ow the trial court did not instruci
he jury that the testimony of the two
sirls was that of accomplices, and tc
De received with great caution and be
ieved only when corroborated b,
lther testimony adduced in the case
While this is so, there is no abso
ute rule of law preventing convic
ions on the testimony of accomplice
t juries believe them
In conclusion the court said
Much is said about .he character o
he testimony adduced as to certain
acts tending to establish the guilt OF
innocence of the accused. This court
loes not weigh the evidence in pro
'eeding of this character, and it is
snough to say that there was substan
-ial testimony tending to support thu
'erdicts rendered in the trial courts
Diggs and Caminetti were arreste(
n Reno on March IA, 1913, n house
IN Cheney street, where they were
living with Marsha Warrington and
ola Norris. They had come from
Sacramento on March 10. and after
staying at local hotel for two days
rented the house where they were
'aptured.
They were charged with violation of
he Mann act. and taken to Sacra
mento to stand trial. After severa
months the trial was held in the fed
eral court at San Francisco ant
brought the resignation of United
States District Attorney McNab
The two men were convicted, and the
'ase was then appealed to the United
States Supreme Court.
Both Diggs and Caminetti wer
married and had wives and families
living in Sacramento.