The Legal Tangle Over 'Criminal Joes'
A judicial disagreement reveals the complexities of federal vs. local authority in 1872 Seattle.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
District Court Judge Greene has issued an opinion to the effect that all crimes must be proceeded against by indictment, and that the practice as adopted by the U.S. Courts does not permit of a proceeding by information. It appears the U.S. District Attorney had filed an information against one Charles Joe for selling liquors to an Indian, and Judge Greene held the proceeding not warranted. The same question recently arose in the United States Circuit Court for the District of California. In the case of United States v. Waller, it was held by Judge Field of the Supreme Court, sitting at Circuit with Circuit Judge Sawyer, that crimes not capital or otherwise infamous may be prosecuted by information filed by the U.S. Attorney. Had this decision been brought to the attention of Judge Greene, no doubt it would have had great weight.
“It appears the U.S. District Attorney had filed an information against one Charles Joe for selling liquors to an Indian, and Judge Greene held the proceeding not warranted.”
This 1872 report highlights the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of prosecutorial power, a recurring theme in American jurisprudence. While the specific legal debate over 'informations' versus 'indictments' has evolved, the question of whether local or federal protocols dictate justice remains a live issue in Seattle's legal landscape.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.