Show CRIMINAL LAW IN philippines opinion on system handed down by supreme justice day washington slay 31 in the supreme court opinions were banded down today in three cases involving questions pertaining to administration ot criminal law in the philippines the points raised were as to the right ot the government to take appeal in criminal cases and ot an accused person to demand trial by jury the first case was that ot kepner va the united states kepner practiced law in manila and was charged with embezzlement the court ot the first instance acquitted him but the supreme court of the islands convicted him the case was then appealed to the supreme court ot the united states by kepner on the ground that by the process of appeal he was put twice in jeopardy contrary to the constitution the opinion by justice day sustained this view reversing the decision of the philippine supreme court justice day in delivering the kepner opinion said the spanish ot j jurisprudence in tha peri matted an appeal tha court or first instance to the supreme court and our military authorities had sanctioned this practice congress however in establishing a civil government in the islands had superseded these orders and had expressly declared that a man could not be tried twice for the same offense having been found anno cent on the first trial denying the report of the trial by jury demanded by dorr and dryan it haa first laid down these conclusions that the constitution of the united states Is the only source of power authorizing action by any branch ot the federal government that the i government may acquire territory as a sovereign nation and make all needful rules and regular alons for the government of the same that this territory may be possessed and still not incorporated in the body politic while the territory lar in ehlt condition or thus held congress ha the right subject to the restrictions of the constitution to make all needful rules and regulations tor its government that the treaty of paris ceding the philippines to the united states states in article 9 that the civil rights and political status of the islands shall be determined and fixed by congress we think the opinion continues that so tar as territory Is outlying and not incorporated congress Is not required to set up trial by jury in his dissenting opinion justice harlan eald that where the rights of ten million people were involved he felt constrained to dissent he did not believe that the provisions cf the federal constitution as to grand and petit juries were mere methods of procedure and were fundamental in their nature in my opinion he continues that guarantee for the protection of liberty and property embodied in the constitution was tor the benefit of all of whatever race or nativity either in tho states composing the united states or in any territory however acquired over which and for the independence of which the united states may exercise and perform the duty placed on it by the constitution the constitution declares no person not american citizen shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime or presentiment or indictment ot a grand jury and the unanimous verdict of a petit jury composed of twelve persons the conclusion reached by the court Is so obviously forbidden by the constitution that I 1 cannot regard the judgment of this court otherwise than as an amendment to the constitution by judicial action when another mode of amendment Is expressly provided for in that instrument granting the trial by jury might be some times inconvenient in the administration of criminal justice in the philippines justice harlan observed but we knew when we acquired theli by treaty such inconveniences he maintained were of slight moment compared with the danger of judicial amendments to the the attorney general obtained permission ot the court to file a petition tor a rehearing in the kepner cage |