| OCR Text |
Show McRETNOLDS ON MANN AOT. It will be remembered that Judge Van Fleet in tho trial of the Biggs case in San Francisco, ruled that the Mann "whito slave" act applies irrespective irre-spective of the point whothor tho ovils against which tho legislation was mado arc "commercialized" or not. That is, that it is not necessary to show in such a caso that tho persons who luro women from one State to another for immoral purposes do this to. make inonoy out of it or not. It matters not whether they intend to sell the womon into "white slavery" or whether the chief design is for the gratification of illicit, passion. The law, declares Judge Van Fleet in effect, is not directed especially es-pecially at tho monoj' part of this immorality, im-morality, but against the immorality itself. The appropriateness of this interpretation interpre-tation of the law is apparent to every linO. 'IMlP. nrtl'.PRKll.V flinf flirt lnrr- cTifill bo so intcrprotcd in order to be of practical validity or forco is plain to every ono who will consider tho matter mat-ter for a moment; for if the accused in such a caso woro allowed to plead that there was no money in the business, that he was not commercializing vice, that ho was merely gratifying his lawless law-less desiros there would bo no lack of evidence offerod to disprove any idea that money was connected with any sort of case that; might arise under the law. Tho immorality involved would be a minor question compared to the main question as to the inonoy and profit. Manifestly this would bo a decidedly de-cidedly undesirable construction of the law, and would afford too many opportunities oppor-tunities to absolutely invalidate the effects ef-fects of the statute. Under Judge 'Van Fleet's ruling, no plea that profit, was not made in the transaction, no excuse ex-cuse that tho "white slave" was not sold for money, can come in; but under un-der the commercial ruling, it would be necessary to show that profit was made and money involved. And so tho law would bo annulled by testimony, perjured per-jured and othorwisc, in such a way as to generally defeat any suit that might be brought. And yet, it is staled that Attorney-General Attorney-General McHoynolds insists that this very distinction, which would bo destructive de-structive of the law, must be kept in mind, and that he will not favor tho bringing of suits in any cases where it cannot' be 6hown that the question involves the actual traffic in women for immoral purposes; and where tho actual "white slavery" under which women are brought for commercial purposes pur-poses from one State to another is not shown. Jn taking this view, Attorney-General Attorney-General McReynolds expressly ignores or overrides tho decision of Judge Van Fleet, and incidentally ho makes himself him-self a tremendously valuable ally to the "white slavers," for it will not bo difficult for them to show in most cases that their vice was not commercialized, commer-cialized, and that the interpretation of the Mann act as made by Attorney-General Attorney-General McReynolds exeulnatcs llinm from all blame under the law. This vciw of his may explain the small importance- which he attached to the Drig8.Caminetti cases. Another view of the matter is, and this is frequently expressed in the Eastern newspapers, that the State of California oijgh,'l to have been able to ileal with those cases under its police powers. But thq case as made was entirely outsido of the jurisdiction of California; for California has no jurisdiction juris-diction over illegal acts committed in Nevada. The idea that the States are sufficient in themselves to deal with such cases as these' of Diggs and Cam-in Cam-in ctti, utterly fails when confronted with the actual facts of these cases. Tf the offenso against the law, as proved, had been committed in California, Cali-fornia, then that position would be sound; but since tho offense as proved was committed in Nevada aud not in California, the argument that California Cali-fornia should deal with tho case as a State must necessarily break down. The whole question resolves itself simply into this: Shall tho Maim act be construed as an act to preserve morality and decency, or is it directed simply aganist the monev traffic in this tort of crimp? Tf the latter, then the law might about as well not hau been passed if the former, then .luiLui Van Fleet's ruling is entirely sound, just as it agrees with practical common com-mon sonso and tho moral sentiment of every community. It is doubtless true that the appeal that has been given no-tico no-tico of in tho Diggs case will chiofiy turn upon this point, aud there can bo scarcoly a doubt that Judge Van Flcot's ruling will bo affirmed. |
