Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 U.S. 766

Hitz

Supreme Court of the United States

May 5, 1884.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1884-05-05

This was an application by Mr. John Hitz for a writ of certiorari commanding the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to certify to this court an indictment and the proceedings thereunder against him in 'that court, on the ground that when the indictment was filed, and when the offences therein charged where committed, he was the diplomatic representative of the Swiss Confederation, duly accredited to and received and recognized by the ..United States, under-the title…

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“As it is conceded that the petitioner is not now in the diplomatic service of Switzerland, and was not when all the proceedings in the Supreme .Court of the District of Columbia •subsequent to the indictment were, had, counsel are directed to request the Secretary of State to certify whether John Hitz was at any- time accredited to- and recognized by the. government'- of the United States as. public or political agent or chargé d’affaires of the Republic of Switzerland, and if so, for what period of time, and up to and including what date.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Baiz

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Cession” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “J.Q.B”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 9–0 · Decided 1884-05-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2004 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)

16 federal appellate · 3 district ·

901884189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

B. F. Butler and O. D. Barrett, for petitioner.

R. Ross Perry and A. S. Worthington, for respondent.

WAITE, C. J.

¶1

This is an application by Mr. John Hitz for a writ of certiorari, commanding the supreme court of the district of Columbia to certify to this court an indictment and the proceedings thereunder against him in that court, on the ground that when the indictment was filed, and when the offenses therein charged were committed, he was the diplomatic representative of the Swiss Confederation, duly accredited to and received and recognized by the United States, under the title of political agent. The indictment was filed on the seventeenth of June, 1881.

¶2

From the return which has been made to the rule to show cause it appears that the indictment is for an offense against the provisions of section 5209 of the Revised Statutes, alleged to have been committed by Mr. Hitz while and as president of the German-American National Bank of Washington. It also appears that he was for many years the consul general of the Swiss Confedation within the United States, and that on the twenty-eighth of February, 1868, he was accredited to the United States by the same government as political agent. On the thirtieth of May, 1881, he was requested by the Swiss Confederation to resign both these offices, and this he did on the fifteenth of June. On the twentieth of June his resignations were accepted. Precisely what the relations of Mr. Hitz to the United States were as political agent of the Swiss Confederation we have not been advised, and on application to the department of state, made on the suggestion of the court by the counsel in this proceeding, we are informed that the records of the department show nothing upon this subject except a letter from him under date of March 30, 1868, inclosing his letter of credence, and soliciting an interview with the secretary of state for its formal presentation; the answer of Secretary Seward according such an interview, and fixing the second of April as the time; and a letter from Secretary Fish to Mr. Hitz, under date of June 28, 1870, informing him that he (the secretary) did not find, in his relations to the United States, any ground for continuing the privilege to him of a free entry of goods imported for his use.

¶3

Under these circumstances, as the writ of certiorari, when applied for by a defendant, is not a writ of right, but discretionary with the court, (Bac. Abr. 'Certiorari,') A,) we deny this application, leaving the parties to such remedies as they may be entitled to elsewhere, or under any other form of proceeding.

/111/us/766 · .json · Public domain