Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-09
CURLING Crime i'm Nation

Merely passing the buck-to use the
army pression-from the jurisdiction
of the State court to the jurisdiction of
the Federal court does not increase the
efficiency of the machinery ordinarily
used to catch the crook Aside from the
availability of witnesses, the local
State law is possessed with many more
weapons with which to fight and
punish the criminal.
States Officers Aided.
The State district attorney and local
county prosecutor are supported by the
police force as a whole in their respec-
tive communities in the detection and
prosecution of crimes. They have larger
appropriations for the jurisdiction OF
their Offices than have the United
States attorneys covering the same jur-
iSdictions. They are not oppressed by
conflicting State laws, whereas the
United States attorneys for the same
territory are limited as to all these
things and proceed with the authority
of Washington.
Continued occupation of the Federal
District Courts with matters that belong
to a magistrates court will necessarily
lower the dignity and prestige of the
former These factors are already at
work. OF course, all of these problems
have been accentuated and made more
difficult by the jurisdiction of the Fed
eral courts in prohibition matters.
Most of the prohibition cases are in
their essence police court cases and tax
to the uttermost the machinery OF the
Federal courts. Rightly or wrongly, In
order to deal with this flood, some of the
judges feel obliged to institute bargain
days" On these days we are treated TO
the not very inspiring sight OF court OF
justice negotiating with the accused ana
having the punishment imposed meas
ured by the necessity Of clearing the
docket.
Interstate traffic in stolen articles has
fallen within the province of the Fed
eral Government, though the basic Of
tense is purely local-a theft. An au-
tomobile is stolen on West Seventy
second street. New York, and sold in
Nevada, where it is discovered and the
thief or his agent arrested. The theft
occurred in New York and, logically,
New York should be the seat of prose-
cution. Early jealousieS and later in
attention, however. have rendered the
processes of New York court impotent
In Nevada. A New York court cannot
summon witnesses from Nevada. So,
instead of being prosecuted for the
theft In the community where 1t oc-
Cured, the thief is prosecuted in the
Federal court in Nevada for interstate
traffic In stolen property. Responsible
ity has been shifted and diffused, the
resentment of the community against
which the thief offended has been dele
gated to the Federal Government.
State Agreements.
Such q state of affairs is inefficient
and unnecessary and contributes to neg
igence. It is possible for States to en-
ter into treaties or agreements concern
ing the return of criminals and wit
nesses which would simplify things
greatly and bring criminals home to
be tried.
We have not yet fully realized the
possibilities Of such compactS between
States which, approved by Congress, Of
fer a real solution to many Of the diff
flculties, including criminal jurisdiction,
heretofore considered impossible of set
Element.
There are instances Of its application:
The compact for the construction of
Boulder Dam recently approved by Con-
greSs; the Rio Grande controversy
among the States Of New Mexico, Colo
RADIO and Texas; the South Platte River
compact between Colorado and Ne
braska. Illustrative of this point is the
statute by which approval was given to
an agreement by Wisconsin, Illinois
and Michigan as to their criminal juris-
diction of Lake Michigan. New York
and Vermont are parties to an ancient
treaty covering this very point-the
transportation of witnesses in a GRIM
inal action from one State to the other.
Would Relieve Courts.
Cooperation among all the States
would relieve the Federal courts Of such
burdens as the prosecution Of automo-
bile thieves and those who steal from
freight cars engaged In interstate COM