Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/225

 192

There are many excellent features in the Spanish codes, especially in the Civil Code, which is said to be constructed on scientific principles, and which has profited in a great degree by the experience of the Latin nations, from the time of Justinian down to the present day. The Criminal Code does not commend itself in such a great degree to the American mind. The refinements and delicate distinctions drawn between crimes of a kindred nature, and the carefully graded system of punishments, leaving nothing whatever to the discretion of the court, and especially the absence of the jury system, are not in accord with ideas spring ing from the great fountain of Anglo-Saxon liberty. Many crimes, also, are regarded as offences against private individuals instead of against the State, and after conviction even, the party supposed to be particularly injured can come into court and file a par don, thus nullifying the judgment and set ting the prisoner free. The Supreme Court of Porto Rico, since its organization under the American military government on the 9th of August, 1899, has had nearly twice as many criminal cases as civil ones, and very few cases involving titles to land or principles of constitutional law. The court is limited in its jurisdiction to the correction of errors, and cannot review the facts of the case except as they are stated in the judgment of the court below. An appeal is allowed both in civil and crim inal cases to every person interested in any case decided by the District Court, without bond or security of any kind. Thus the most frivolous cases command the attention of the Supreme Court equally with the most important. A quarrel between two fishwomen, in which the usual epithets are hurled from one to the other, has been gravely paraded before the court of last resort in the Island for final settlement.

During the appeal, defendants in all except the gravest cases are permitted to remain at large. The Supreme Court has original ju risdiction in cases of malfeasance or mis feasance in office. Among the more impor tant cases presented to the Supreme Court since the American occupation, are the fol lowing : A district attorney was charged by the prosecuting officer with neglect of duty and accepting a bribe in an investigation made by him as to the occurrence of an incendiary fire. The judges of the District Court in which he exercised his functions were the principal witnesses, and were divided on the question two to one. The matter was tried in a public hearing by the Supreme Court and consumed several days. Great interest was manifested in the result throughout the island. Witnesses contradicted each other on every point, and finally the defendant was acquitted for lack of evidence. The strangest feature, however, of the trial was the fact that in making the statement in his own be half, the accused acknowledged that one of the affidavits presented by him to the court was false, and excused himself on the ground that he had been falsely charged with accept ing a bribe, and was fighting the devil with fire. It seems that this action on his part cannot be punished under the Spanish code, and apparently his prestige as a lawyer was not injured by the perjury or the confession of it. However, the Supreme Court recom mended in the sentence acquitting him that he should be removed from office by the executive authority, which was promptly done. Another case of great interest was that of a municipal judge who was tried before the Supreme Court for usurpation of jurisdiction. In cases where two municipal courts or dis trict courts claim jurisdiction of the same case, the matter has to be referred to the Su