Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-11-20

FOUR DEFENDA.lss
ARE ExTRADFTEl

r.. Governor FT5s Uday gfante0
acquisitions OF 2li sei3snor Burn
quist Of Minnesot y aos The extra
dttion Sof Roy spprsite Paul VIII
liams and Eugene Coulter, who
have been on triaIia q. s, district
court here for allegsd violation of
the Mann. white, alayes act.
The jury which has been hearing
the evidence and arguments in the
Spriggs, William HoSg, Paul Williams
Clifton Bridgemana ana Eugene Coul-
ter for alleged violation OF the Mann
white slave act, retired at 1888
o'clock this morning after having
heard the charge $of Judge c. F..
Amidon. ~ /
Immediately after tie jury had left
the court room the defendants went
into the ;marshal's once, where they
were chatting and laughing as though
they had been mere disinterested
spectators at the. drama of which they
were the chief actors. Adelaide G..
Chapman, the complaining witness,
left the building, accompanied by Mrs.
the government moved the case Of the
United States against the East Grand
Forks Brewing company.
The Courts Charge.
In his charge to the jury this morn
ing the court poinAs out that after
Withdrawing the cSs piracy charge of
the indictment ,axainst the five de-
PENDANTS, only tWnA counts remained.
The charge rems3tng lis that of
transporting. or atStng and assisting
in transporting, forsminoral purposes,
any woman from qe state into an
other. The crime charged consists of
two parts; first, the act and second,
the intent, he pointed out.
The court said, with regard to the
intent charge, thGtt was for the jury
to determine whether the defendants
had planned, sessfass ntorsQurse with
the prosecuting witnek at the time OF
their departure from 31He state. into
anct acharxss.s the coub bt3said. sons CON
deriling the trip from Grand Forks
North Dakota, to Croekston. Minne,
sofa, and another conserving the jour.
kSney from Crookston; Minnesota, tc
pGrand Forks; North Dakota.
Now in respect to this" the court
said, "the government contends thai
Miss Chapman got into an auto truck
in Grand Forks, North Dakota, while
the defense claims she entered the
truck in East Grand Forks, Mime
sofa. This is the first contradiction al
the threshold of the first count. I,
may look immaterial, but it is de.
cisive for the purpose Of ascertaiiine
whether or not the Mann act has beer
violated. This act rests entirely upon
the transportation in interstate COM
merce. It is the fact Of transporta-
ton and intent which gives the gov
ernment authority and jurisdiction in
this case. Were crime committed
solely within one state, 1t would be a
state ofrense and should be dealt with
according to the laws of that state
Only where the crime begins in one
state and extends into another, has the
government jurisdiction.
Regarding the use Of the word
commerce, you may think that this
simply means trading. 1t is not so
Transportation is commerce within
the meaning of the federal statute. So
the first question for you, gentlemen
of the jury, to decide. is: Where did
Miss Chapman get into that auto
truck?
'If in East Grand Forks, Minnesota
it is your duty to find the defendants
not guilty on that count. If in Grand
Forks. North Dakota, you will take
consider whether or not the defend
ants transported the prosecuting wit
ness or aided and assisted in trans-
porting her from North Dakota into
the state of Minnesota.
Aiding and Assisting.
'.As to the meaning Of the term
aiding and assisting, it may consist in
either word or deed counsel, assist.
ance, or advice to in any way. assist
But the mere riding on truck as q
passenger would not be aiding and
assisting; the simple joining in that
ride, this expedition of youth, would
not be. aiding and assisting. It is not
the defendant within the statute that
he should have procured the truck OF
sat at the Wheel but it is necessary
to find that he aided and assisted in
the transportation. If you find that the
defendants did not aid and assist lin
the transportation, it Is your duty tc
say that they are not guilty under the
first count. y
The second question IL, with refer.
ence I'd each of the defendants:l Did
he share in the Illegal act p And. wal
that his purpose and intent?Nif yor
answer In! the affirmative. you mus
hnd him guilty, and he should be
found guilty. But il you find that hi
did not participate in both the trans.
portation and the intent, you should
find him not guilty.
You can easily fall into error
Continued on Page s.,
L ~ 4