sequently by the time I wrote Mr. Williams' speech my time was pretty well taken up..

This is my first opportunity to address this Association, for its enlightenment(???) Presumably I am familiar with my subject. This presumption arises solely from the holding of office. If satisfactory to you, I prefer not to have this presumption challenged. One of the purposes of this Association is to give lawyers an opportunity to tell everything they know, and it is well I think that we should not keep everything to ourselves. This reminds me of the fellow whom I met on my return from a trip to Bermuda. It was the year I was married; I think it was last year. He was a retired village blacksmith. As we were nearing New York we engaged in conversation. We talked for a while, whereupon he asked me if I would join him in a drink of Scotch. I said, "No, thank you." (This is not the point of the joke.) He said, "I am gcing to play a trick on those customs officials in New York." I said, "What are you going to do?" He said, "I have just a little bit of Sectch left. I am going to drink it and put water in the bottle and put it in the top of my suitcase. When they open the suitcase they will say to themselves, 'We have him.' But I will know that they haven't." He wanted to know what I thought of it. I told him that it sounded all right, but in order to ascertain whether or not it was water or whiskey it would in all probability be sent to the Government Analytical Bureau in Washington. This would consume some ten or fifteen days, and in the meanwhile he might find himself parked in the New York jail or else out on bail. He said, "Can they do that?" I said, "Yes." Neither of us said anything for a couple of minutes. Finally he turned to me and said, "Brother, you know a man is a damn fool to keep everything to himself, isn't he?" I agreed.

It is very difficult for me to gather from our most worthy President, to whom I feel greatly indebted for the introduction, just exactly the nature of the remarks that we are supposed to make. I am not certain wether it is to be a debate or a lecture. If it is a debate, then my colleague, the Hon. Judge Soper, made a most delightful speech. If it is not a debate, I am very proud indeed of Mr. Williams' paper; and while I haven't heard him yet, I feel equally satisfied that you will all enjoy the address which is to follow, to be made by my distinctive friend Eugene O'Dunne.

Perhaps it might be helpful if I should undertake to familiarize you with how criminal law is actually practiced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alias Judge Rose. I shall not indulge in theory. Only a very few of our lawyers pretend to be familiar with criminal procedure in the Federal Court. Inasmuch as you are all lawyers I shall undertake to speak in plain terms, so that you will understand me (???) The primary object of the offices of the Judge, District Attorney and United States Commissioner is to make certain so far as possible the conviction of the guilty and to protect the innocent. Unlike the State's Attorney, the District Attorney is part and parcel of the Department of Justice of the United States, in charge of which is the Attorney General of the United States. He is perhaps less handicapped and embarrassed than the State's Attorney, inasmuch as he receives his office by appointment. While it is true I was appointed by the Hon. Woodrow Wilson, nevertheless this had nothing to do with the breaking down of his health.

The popular impression seems to be that the so-called Department of Justice of the United States investigates all Federal crimes. I might say that the average run of Federal Crimes or crimes over which the Federal Court has jurisdiction are investigated and brought to our attention by the Department of Justice. However, the various departments of the Government usually take care of those crimes which are peculiar to the particular department. For example, the Post Office Department has a separate corps of men whose duty it is to investigate and bring to our attention violations of the Postal Laws. Operating under the Treasury Department we have the Internal Revenue officers who attend to the enforcement of such laws as the Harrison Drug Law and the National Prohibition Act, which latter Act has undoubtedly caused many of you more or less anxiety from time to time; the Secret Service Agents, who have to deal with the laws of counterfeiting and forgery, and whose special duty it is to guard the person of the President of the United States; the Customs Officers, who investigate and bring to our attention violations of the customs laws.

With the possible exception of the National Prohibition Act, the various investigating officers of the Federal Government are composed of trained and experienced men. The National Prohibition Act is of such recent origin that the Government has not yet been able to develop the class of trained

men that are employed by the various departments that have been in existence for some time. The principle controlling the operations of the prosecuting officers of the Government is to investigate first and then arrest if the investigation justifies. Consequently, when an arrest is once made the traverser has less chance of being acquitted than where investigation follows the arrest. There are, of course, exceptional cases where circumstances demand an arrest before the investigation is complete.

Theoretically, wherever possible, the Government agent in charge of the investigation and whose duty it is to swear out the warrant of arrest, consults the office of the District Attorney and procures his approval before the warrant is sworn out. The District Attorney has considerable discretion in the matter of prosecuting cases, that is to say, whether a case shall or shall not be prosecuted, but his discretion is not as great as that of the State's Attorney. The District Attorney operates with the Attorney General of the United States as his chief, and an endeavor is always made to establish a harmonious working arrangement between the District Attorney's office, the office of the Attorney General and the department whose cases are being considered. It is the rarest occasion that any serious disagreement arises between the District Attorney, Attorney General and the department for whom the case is being handled, as to whether a prosecution should or should not be instituted, and whether being instituted it should be abandoned. Consent of the presiding judge must first be had before a "nolle prosequi" is entered and when such request is made the facts and also the reasons of the District Attorney are given to the Court.

When the traverser is arrested he is brought before the United States Commissioner and his preliminary hearing arranged for. These preliminary hearings are always attended by some member of the District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office has this advantage over that of the State's Attorney in that the State's Attorney's office is rarely represented at the preliminary hearings had before the police justices. I neglected to say that it frequently happens under exceptional circumstances that a party suspected of guilt is interviewed before any warrant is sworn out, to the end that the suspicions of the investigating officers might be strengthened, or, on the contrary, that the suspected party might not

be embarrassed should they conclude that he is an innocent party.

If the offense with which the traverser is charged is a misdemeanor the traverser is taken into court and arraigned on an information filed in the name of the District Attorney. · If on arraignment he pleads "Guilty" he must be tried before a jury, inasmuch as the traverser cannot waive a jury trial in the Federal Court. If the crime with which he is charged is a felony the matter must first be presented to the Grand Jury and an indictment found. If a true bill is returned the traverser is arraigned in the same manner and form as in cases of misdemeanors. In this connection I might say that there is some difference in the method of operation by the State and Federal Grand Juries. The State grand jurors conduct the examination of their own witnesses and present, and on the strength of this presentment an indictment is prepared. The State's Attorney is never present unless sent for by the Grand Jury. In the Federal Court, at least as the practice prevails in the District of Maryland, such witnesses appear before the Grand Jury as are subpoenaed by the United States Attorney. The indictment is prepared in advance. The District Attorney is always present during the hearings but excuses himself before deliberation and voting. The witnesses are called and their examination conducted by the District Attorney, it being understood that the grand jurors may participate in the examination if they care to do so. Theoretically the duty resting on the Grand Jury is the same with respect to the Federal penal laws as it is with the State Grand Jury with respect to the State laws. The Federal grand jurors are seldom heard from in the matter of investigations initiated. My observations are that the State grand jurors accomplish about the same by way of orinigal investigation and the initiation of prosecutions, although it might be truthfully stated that their retirement is perhaps accompanied by a report which is more or less high sounding in its terms, but which so far as accomplishment is concerned means nothing.

The Federal Government, at least so far as concerns the District of Maryland, has for years been careful in the class of cases which it has undertaken to bring to the attention of the Court. This is made possible largely because of the fact that the investigations usually precede the swearing out of the warrant. It is felt that it is better to forego the prosecution

in an occasional case, which is very doubtful in its character, rather than permit of an acquittal. This simply means that the District Attorney's office is really reasonably certain of conviction before the case is instituted. As the result of this system, which was inaugurated long before my term of office, the public has been impressed, I might say, with the fact that when the prosecuting officer of the Federal Government announces that he can with reasonable certainty predict a conviction, considerable credit is given his statement. As a result, counsel for the traverser takes up with his client the matter of pleading "Guilty," knowing, of course, that the Federal Court in this district always gives credit to the traverser who pleads "Guilty" and thus saves the Government the labor and expense of trial, and rewards him accordingly. The District Attorney has, as a rule, few or no secrets so far as concerns counsel for the traverser. The facts are usually in such shape that they can be reviewed by the counsel for the traverser and in this way he is put in a position to advise his client as to the nature and strength of the case the Government has against him. If the traverser pleads "Guilty" he has reason to believe that he will not be let off with a reprimand. Consequently he approaches the Court more or less with fear and trembling. If he pleads "Not Guilty" and is convicted by the jury, he understands that his punishment will be even greater and that he is apt to find a more or less permanent parking place in the State of Georgia or across the falls in Baltimore. If the traverser pleads "Guilty" the Court is given the full benefit of his record so far as the District Attorney is acquainted with it, at which time the Court is also given anything in favor of the traverser, to the end that the Court might understand fully the exact type of individual with whom it is dealing. In criminal cases that are tried the Court always instructs the jury with respect to the law governing the case. This is seldom, if ever, done by the State judges in Maryland. Furthermore, the Federal judge is allowed considerable latitude in commenting on the evidence. This he does. Usually the Court in this district sums up the evidence to the jury, and so far as concerns comments, the particular court to whom I have reference now plays no favorites with either the traverser or the Government. This practice I think insures greater protection to the innocent, and lessens considerably the chances of the guilty. The method of conducting the criminal practice in the Federal Court has made