Show HE FHE NATIONAL CAPITAL IS EXCLUDED DOUBTLESS many of our readers will remember the case of surgeon millard millaid H crawford U S N who about a year ago age as is alleged seduced a young girl at washington and was soon afterwards prosecuted for fornication under the edmunds tucker law there were no HO merits on the side of the defense to rely upon the evidence A the defendants guilt was not impeached and his sole hope of escape from the vengeance of the law was based upon the technicality that the statute under which tile the prosecution had been instituted wi was L s not i intended 11 to apply to the district of columbia since the prosecution of crawford began other cases similar to his have arisen at the national capital and it has been reported that considerable uneasiness existed there relative to the question as to whether the edmunds tucker law embraced the district of columbia or not california papers have received a telegram from washington to the effect that the appellate court in the crawford case chief justice bingham Bini hani presiding has decided that the statute in question does not apply to the district of columbia tue decision holds that 6 the statute was clearly intended to meet the practices ot of the cormons mormons inthe in the of utah and when congress passed laws for the district it usually included a statement to that effect toe tae decision is not reported iu full and we can only cite its salient points as given in the I 1 press dispatch the latter contains a statement to the effect that the decision created considerable lumise surprise in ID the district attorneys office I 1 the assisting prosecuting officer who conducted the case against crawfurd crawford declared that the decision left the district without any law prescribing punishment fur adultery fornication and incest in view of the circumstances unde which it was delivered judge bing hams decision in the crawford case casebi ii a remarkable one the edmunds tucker act by the explicit lari language guage of its title is declared to the e an act to amend an act entitled an act to amend section fifty three hundred and fifty two of the revised statutes of them the united states in reference to bigamy and for other purposes approved march second eighteen hundred and eighty two 11 in IE other words it is amendatory of what i iti is popularly known as the edmunds law it does not amend the latter law lair by limiting or in any way changing its j jurisdiction uris diction not a wordin word in the second f law refers directly or indirectly indirect lv to the territorial jurisdiction of the first and the purpose of the second law Is ii plainly and provisions clear clearly to supplement witti witt additional provisions the former one with a view to making it more explicit and effective the second adds to the scope of the first in every particular touched upon and does not limit it in i s any this point will be made perfect 1 ly y guear clear ity by a reading of the two statutes it follows then that the tb i amending law has and must it reason 1 i and logic are to prevail be accorded t I 1 all the territorial jurisdiction had bt br the law which is amended unless the t contrary is explicitly expressed in no less than three different sec dioris of the edmunds law does lan ian guage occur making its provisions ap I 1 in a territory or other place s over which the united states nave hav exclusive jurisdiction the clause quoted quote occurs in section 1 defining an and punishing uni shing polygamy in sections section 3 3 pun punishing shing unlawful cohabitation and I 1 in section 8 franchising disfranchising dis coln amista the putative pu native sections of the a edmunds law are ar in terms made to a apply wherever the united states have hav a exclusive jurisdiction anano ana no tion diverse from this occurs la in tb the pu native sections of the edmunds keker tucker law which are amendatory 0 ol 01 I 1 and supplementary to the former true some of the sections of the ed 01 bbunds Js tucker law are in terms limite liml te to utah but this circumstance is a an i argument in favor of the view that tha other sections not so limited nave hav i the broader scope according to ta this remarkable de casion so apparent in its conflict witt wit s the ian language u age of 0 the law th the eMor mor fl idaho arizona and elsewhere outside of utah are not subject to th the a operations of the statute if jud judge a bingham is right in excluding the dis DID brict of columbia on en tho the gro no I 1 stated by him by no BO known process 0 of 4 logic could any other ether territory oft 0 other place ever which the united d states have exclusive jurisdiction b bs i included it if be be correct then the law is A delusion and a snare and one of tb i most gross and inexcusable pieces 0 on specia hand land therefore unconstitutional legislative hypocrisy ever perpetrated e t abed in this or any other nation the arguments while both the original and subsequent or amendatory measures were pending showed plainly that solar as words convey anim an impression the legislation was not in ia tended to be of a special or class character |