The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1917-01-18
VICE WITHOUT PAY
COVERED BY ACT,
COURT DECLARES
Diggs and Caminetti Must Serve
Sentence for Trip With High
School Girls Under
Decision.
EFFECT UP TO CONGRESS
Court Declines to Knock Out
Law Because Ii Is Said
to Open Doc. to
BlackmaM.

NJ . MI
Washington. Jan. 1G-Intcrpreting
the Mann white slave law, the supreme
court today decided that prosecutions
undo the aw for transporting women
In interstate commerce are not limited
to commercialized vice and include per-
n immoral escapades. Conviction
of Il. Drew Caminetti and Maury /.
Digs, of Sacramento. was affirmed.
The court was divided The majority
opinion was given by Justice Day.
Chief Justice White and Justices Nc
Kenna and Clarke dissented. Justice
McReynolds took no part in considera-
ton of the cases.
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
that is to be considered by congress.
We think the power of congress to reg
ulate transportation of passengers af-
fords ample basis to exercise authority
in the case of this statute"
Following interpretation of the Mann
act, the court also affirmed conviction
OF l.. T.. Hays, of Alva, Okla.
Laws Validity Upheld.
Although the supreme court had pre-
viously upheld constitutionality of the
Mann white slave law, the question Of
whether it prohibits interstate trans
%portation of women only for CONNER
| cialiZed vice or applies to mere per-
sonal immoral escapades having no
element Of commercialism or coercion
| has been disputed ever since the laws
enactment.
Interpretation by the supreme court
of the disputed point was asked in the
celebrated Diggs-Caminetti cases and
in the case of L.. T. Hays, of Alva, Okla.
In all three cases, the government o
coded, there was no element of traffic
for gain.
Caminetti was sentenced to IS
months Imprisonment and fined 81, 500;
Diggs to, two years and q $4,000 fine.
Hays had an Is months prison SEN
tence. All have been at liberty under
bail.
Lower federal courts and different
administrations of the department Of
justice have differed over the laws in
terpretation. Various won1en.s clubs
and other organizations have agitated
for an Interpretation to curb all i'm
morality, whether commercial or not.
Other Questions Raised.
Two other important questions raised
were, whether women We're accomplices
and, whether men might be convicted
solely upon a woman's unc~orroborate
| testimony.
Diggs and Caminetti were tried and
convicted separately, the former on Au-
| gust ~, 1913, and the latter on Septeln-
Der B, 1913. Their cases were CONSOLE
dated and affirmed March IS, 1915, by
the Ninth circuit court. In the supreme
court all three cases were advanced.
both SIDES desiring early settlement of
the disputed questions, and argued to-
gether in November, 1916. Assistant At
torney General Wallace representing
the government N former Senator
Bailey, Of Texas, Marshall B.. Wood
worth. of San Francisco and Harry O..
Glaaser, Of Enid, Okla, the defend
ants.
Upot: the supreme courts decision
future prosecutions under the Mann
act are defendent. including several
| persons under Indictment and awaiting
trial, including Jack Johnson. the negro
pusliist, convicted at Chicago in 1913.
Johnson now is a fugitive from justice
in Europe.
Less eerious of OHenses.
Justice i,ay's majority opinion said:
lE none of the cases Was it charged
or proved that the transportation TOT
the Wcscsen involved) was for gain or
iof the purpose of furnishing women
Tor prostitution for hire. There is no
anonymity IN the terms of this act. 1t
IS elementary that the meaning of a
statute, must, in the first instance. be
sought in the language of the act as
framed, and If that is plain the sole
junction CT the courts is to enforce it
according to its terms.
10 cause a woman to be TRANSPORTED
for denauchery or for an immoral pur-
pose, Tor which Diggs and Caminetti
We're convicted, would see by the very
statement OF the facts to embrace
TRANSPORTATION for purposes denounced
by, the act. While such immoral pur-
pose would be more culpable in morals
II accompanied with expectation of
gam, such considerations dc not pre-
vent lhe lesser offense against morals,
rom the execution of imposes within
the meaning Of the law. To say the
contrary would shock the common un-
Outstanding of what constitutes an i'm
moral purposes
Wnether the women involved became
technically accomplices, argued in be-
nali OF the three defendants, was not
declded by the court. 1t d~isposes of
that feature as follows:
Dodses Woman Question.
1T is urged as further ground Of re-
versal of the judgments below the trial
court dld not instruct the jury that the
testimony OF the two girls was that of
accomplices and to be received with
great caution and believed Only when
ulIoporaIed by other testimony ad-
duced in the case.
While this is SO, there is no abso-
lutte rule of law preventing convictions
on this testimony OF ~accomplices if
Juries believe Them
IN conclusion, the court said.
Much is said about the character of
the testimony adduced and as to certain
facts, tending to establish the guilt or
innocence of the accused. This sourt
does not weigh the evidence in a pro-
ceedlns OF this character. and il is
enough to say that there was s,Ibstan-
tai testimony tending to support the
Yerdicts rendered in the5triai courts