The Editor's Bag Mylius' behalf, and was sustained by Judge Noyes in the federal District Court Feb. 19, the court holding that Mylius had not been "convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude." This decision was not based upon any doubts of the gravity of the particular libel in question, but upon the negligence of an editor who permits the publication of libelous stories but is not by so doing shown to be morally base. Judge Noyes did not in the slightest degree minimize the serious character of the petitioner's acts or reflect in any way upon the fair ness and regularity of his trial in England. Mylius was then released and announced his intention to take-up literary work in the United States. The case of Cipriano Castro, ex-president of Venezuela, was in some respects similar. Castro, on his arrival from Havre on La Touraine not long after Mylius reached this country, was de tained at Ellis Island for examination, on orders from Secretary Nagel. His deportation was ordered, and he was to have sailed for Germany, but George Gordon Battle secured a writ of habeas corpus, which Judge Holt dismissed on the ground that the examination by the immigration officials had not been com pleted and the court could not prop erly interfere. A month later, three days after Mylius' release, the writ was allowed by Judge Ward, who held that the act, in permitting the exclusion of persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, requires evidence of a specified kind of the commission of the crime alleged, and that evidence of the specified sort had not been pre sented, to show Castro guilty of the murder of General Paredes in cold blood. Castro, after remaining in this country a week, sailed away to Havana of his own accord Feb. 22. In both these cases the persons sought
199
to be excluded can hardly be looked upon as desirable or welcome arrivals in this country. But this does not imply that they are morally base, nor does their exclusion appear to have failed merely through the difficulty of complying with technical requirements of the law. In one case the crime did not involve moral turpitude, in the other a certainty that it had been committed could not be established by the unsatisfactory evidence supplied by the Government, — one cannot even be morally certain that Castro committed the base crime alleged. Lengthy proceedings were required to reach the negative result, and it may be assumed that the authorities at Ellis Island could have administered their duties to better advantage with less interference from higher officials in Washington. A salutary instance of the subordination of administrative officials, even Cabinet officers, to the limitations of the law has been afforded, and it is well to have it emphasized, now and then, that the immigration act cannot be over ridden by any one, however high in the Government, for reasons of a diplomatic nature or for any other cause. COQUELIN AS FOREMAN COQUELIN, the actor, was more than once called upon to do jury duty. The first time his name was drawn it was for service as foreman. The case before the court was an everyday burglary — two men had been caught leaving a house with the stolen property in their arms. An amusing incident occured toward the end of the hearing. When, as foreman, M. Coquelin read the finding of the jury, he for got to place his hand upon his heart, as decreed by the law. Thereupon one of the prisoners' counsel raised an objec tion on a point of procedure, which was
