Court Opinion

ID: 9417957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:45:17.188568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:53.339024
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice PeckAam,
concurring.
I concur in the result of the opinion of the court in this case, which upholds the conviction of the plaintiffs in error on a trial at Manila, Philippine Islands, for a criminal offense, without a jury. I do so simply because of the decision in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S.197. That case was decided by the concurring views of a majority of this court, and although *154I did not and do not concur in those views, yet the case in my opinion is authority for the result arrived at in the case now before us, to wit, that a jury trial is not a constitutional necessity in a criminal case in Hawaii or in the Philippine Islands. But, while concurring in this judgment, I do not wish to be understood as assenting to the view that Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, is to be regarded as authority for the decision herein. That case is authority only for the proposition that the plaintiff therein was not entitled to recover the amount of duties he had paid under protest upon the importation into the city of New York of certain oranges from the port of San Juan, in the Island of Porto Rico, in November, 1900, after the passage of the act known as the Foraker act. The various reasons advanced by the judges in reaching this conclusion, which were not concurred in by_a majority of the court, are plainly not binding. The Mankichi case is, however, directly in point, and calls for an affirmance of this judgment.
I am authorized to say that the Chief Justice and ]\Ir. Justice Brewer agree in this concurring opinion.