The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 801
xv, 1025 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
UNITED STATES V. M'CARTHY
Habeas corpus to the marshal of the Southern district of New York, who
returned that he held the relators under the warrant of a commissioner of
the District Court issued in a removal proceeding under Revised Statutes,
1014. The proceeding was not concluded, and the commissioner had not yet
certified to the District Court that the relators should be removed. The case
was this: An indictment was found in the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia for a conspiracy under section 37 of the Criminal Code, charging
that the offense against the United States contemplated by the conspiracy was
to keep a "bucket shop" in that District, in violation of an amendment to the
Code of Taw of the District, passed by Congress on March 1, 1909 (35 Stat.
670, c. 223, 869a, 869b). The point raised is that section 37 of the Criminal
Clde comprises only conspiracies to commit crimes created by general statutes
of the United Status, i. e., general federal crimes, as it were, and does not com-
prise conspiracies to commit crimes defined only by local statutes of the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
George A. Knobloch, of New York City, for relator Vause.
Walter E. Warner, of New York City, for other relators.
Garrett W. Cotter, of Flushing, N. Y., for respondent.
LEARNED HAND, District Judge (after stating the facts as
above). The theory of Judge Brown in Re Dana, 68 Fed. 886, has
been definitely overruled, that Revised Statutes, 1014 (Comp. St.
1916, 1674), does not apply to offenses committed in the District of
Columbia, at least when they are crimes against the general laws of the
United States. Benson v. Henkel, 198 U S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 569, 49
L. Ed. 919; In re Price (C. C.) 83 Fed. 830; Price v. McCarty, 89 Fed.
84, 32 C. C. A. 162. That theory rested upon the idea that the remov-
al must be to courts existing at the time of the passage of the judiciary
Act and before the District of Columbia had been set apart, or at least
that it must be to courts deriving their authority from the Judiciary
Act. Judge Brown, however, went further than this, and held that
in any event, disregarding that point, the removal could not apply to
offenses which arose under the "local laws," as he called them, of the
District of Columbia. His notion as to these was that it would put
the District of Columbia at a relative advantage over the states, which
was not to be understood. The contrary of such a doctrine was an-
nounced obiter in Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 14, 25 Sup. Ct. 569,
49 L. Ed. 919, and decided by Judge McPherson in United States v.
Campbell (D. C.) 179 Fed. 762, and perhaps in result in United States
v. Wimsatt (D. C.) 161 Fed. 586, though it is not clear whether the in-
dictment there was not, as in Re Price, supra, under Revised Statutes,
5356 (Comp. St. 1916, 10460).
[1] I see no reason to suppose that a crime created by an act of
Congress, applying specially to the District of Columbia, should not be
removable under section 1014, if for no other reason than because it
cannot be tried there otherwise. Concededly there is no extradition
between the District of Columbia and a state. It is certainly unreason-
able to suppose that there is no way of removing to the District of Co-
lumbia one who has offended against a local law, but who cannot be
reached by bench warrant.
[2] It is true that in the case at bar the critical question is not
whether Revised Statutes, 1014, applies to a violation of section 869a
of the Code of the District of Columbia, but whether section 37 of the
250 F.-51
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/816/: accessed May 13, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.