New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-05-27

tally different paper from 9as Genc roysE nan
ing except shanks was never in custody upon an
Legal haSeas an Sy Of any such paper
The committed was IN the 1rst lhs,ance ~ 'o
ayGcn w1 IL to none xisent Official described The
Keeper OF Jail. which In law qua 10. IN Ins,ics
%'' quite ye ea'ur and LOT rer@ s Of
after shanks had testified In thS OK ase writ
to the keeper of the jail within named " Gol Cp Inc
the haneas corpus ad testfcandu'n, slanss Was re-
manded prison-of iilTwhich IN law ava no. sxst,
myfn was OF itself sufficient wis Snlnk could
not be further deprived of his liberty Apart rom tos
OF legal Demonstration that the law yes no
to Court to remand Ssck 20 nprsenment
ordered by the Court (not upon tiial aisr nucanp
back 70 Imprisonment one who brought up on habeas
corpus ad tesfeanduD' IL the following: JUS pto'ded
By sr ser.iG whse e any 81 DsS. shall
o. e s" ss on ,a @ prisoner before aay court s
or any contenp or any oheT mattel aod be re
.S ,o sss be . .ssi be rsane Ravg
q On Dc % s s &c ne '' De 80 COM
1t makes difference whether me contenp. OF when
hereafter subject shanks to an arrest By the warrant OF
s,nnd nrelimInary TO a trial before jury In such
event should he hereafter be 70 arrested and c0nnned
benp he sad TO be committed on "a criminal charge
IL is true may be indicted Tor criminal con
tempt IA already shown pursuance OF section a. PAGE
u.s. Of r. S. stu Ed In order subject shanks TO the
liability of being remanded to prison, IN any event
must be returned upon the writ thst be RS IS
charged in execution or committed has as sfoTI
,sn na' pGsd"s the oyer
and rerminer haze to send no p5I b
officer having hin in S Ss2rsg nSa u %ao
produced s@ az n ed Seer Of %
things appear TIE return ON the writ does not SLOW
that anks e. he'll 1PF AMY Sa
held by virtue OF commitment issued by the non;
j. w. Gilbert, which commitment is hereto anncxea
Vhara IA
thereto annexed. The commitment thefeI0 anheAcd
petuaI. The commitment thereto annexed, not only dd
not show that shanks was committed on erlhlndi
charge but it did show that he was not so eomse,'
and that he committed for an alleged contempt.
Even had the commitment been regular ald te1 tiio
imprisonment thirty days, there would then nave
been no authority for remanding shanks The law pro-
70 prso I unless can be done above
quoted That section makes no pr9'sion Io lug
der the circumstances upon which ShaDks was commit
ted The order the habeas corpus at hsttnedndum
! remandng Shanks was void.
FIRST: Because snanks was not in execution on any
cs ae esf S did no upon the writ
Third Sbanks renlanded 10 the custody OF an oih-
Raymond.st jail" There such official, nor Is there
any such Jail known 10 the law. ,,
The commitment under which 1t was attempted 10 h9la
shanks in Imprisonment in Kings County benz yola Se
the reasons already stated the " I.Inand upon lne
habeas corpus I'D hstfeandunl could LOT IN any event
make the Imprisonment upon the yold commitihehIs
legal II the commitment under whicn Snanhs was s me
Kings County was absolutely void on us lace thens
was the imperative duty Of Judge Faneher 10 discharge
contained any OF the fatal detects already pohleo
out
The point made by Mr.. Bntton, that Judge Fancher
sitting at Chambers, had no authority to bring
the prisoner before him, by virtue OF the writ OK
habeas corpus granted By him. returnablc before him.
self there being at that time Court OF oyer and Ter
miner in session in the County of Kings Is unenaoie
The following Is section Of the Revised Statutes re-
Aer the Conr, Of over Tener shall its sitting. il
any eonntI no pn,g h aei oy ,Irom by any xn d
hSbas corpus, unles such wit hal have ben aa Y ~,
e., e., p en 1859 j5" Sec c. q 'N''' ''-'
| Judge Fancher in his opinion. He says: -,,t,s
objected that the writ should have Been pale arnsse
1s os aa tSnAI %d g s. 5 Ed 1866 20 apph
I Of the sOSsy UPON criminal charge pees'e a'
The psoDyy VA co .q oy or Sns esaTs e-'Hs
w further oei that been retu,ble etors
s @f o9s s Section "A the Habea. CORPUS 5
made n a a., 22 n rest s a ~ sany where the
ooe .Ga ,S 1 sn T Writ There are Two tins
e2 @ 9s SeGs 81 wsfG van ,s S On %
liberty By the Sns cGqnr IN S the GSp ST IN the
va, was TSb % SH cSs u 4a sa h S'
rre to does no. sppy TO Supreme Court
5q' o. 'ea eoa can. u 10 5v paT e siae ahoagh hs
the where the mFrsonmen exists Eo could ae
ccep pi 5 3Ss r People ' as roSy Rep 4io
EIGHTH POINT.
The attempt made by Mr. Britton 10 discuss the merits
OF this suguarly unfortunate.
In his printed brief he seeks to show that the effect OK
sustaining Judge Fanchers decision will be disastrous TO
this eomnlun-to society generally,in snort TO tho
dearest interests of the civilized world. With reference
to the discharge Of Shanks in this ana the decision
OF Judge Fancher, Mr.. Brltton says:
strikes blow at the foundations Of society practically
boes grand e'tabshe. universal mmGn, from erme
Ii has parallel.
He further says:
If the nBrSs, may enable the couce'lent q
newspaper ofee make such rules any other business
such place sanctuary for crime
There is snch curious mixture OF mythical facts and
dreul iorcbodin that it is difficult to determine what
construction put Mr.. Brton's language. lie
the Grand Jury in tier exploring expedition. were
to discover " the name of the writer" because
they presumed that from him OF all Others such facts
Mr. Shanks ready and anxious TO give tue facts anu
names Of witnesses. Ii was well known that the fscts
within his personal knowledge that the facts
published III THE TRIBUNE could not be proved by those
connected with the paper because information, how
correct, derived from others cannot be given In
evidence for the reason that the law rejects II as hear
say" Mr. Britton argues though the object OF the
charged and bring To Justice those who had been guilty
of derection OF official duty. Yet both the genuine ana
wrong commitments Exhibits and 3D. fols; 80 and e2
allege that the subject before the Grand
Jury, about which shanks was interro;
gated related to 1.-THE matter of libel
alleged TO have been published OF and concerning Alex
ander McCue" The object OF The proceedings before
the Grand Jury, riding TO the record before this
TO prove that he had been il Was only necessary
TO call witness Mr. McCue himself. When charge -
pending before Grand Jury it is not customary call
the witnesses for the Defense and put them through
or compulsory examination IL IL rare that
DistrctAttorney subpenas witnesses on behalf OF he
defense This Is the only instance IN which DISTRICT
Attorney has compelled witness for the defense TO 40
before aGrand Jury and then sent him TO jail because
SSee AHi GSd ~ ae INC Cases
brought before the Grand Jury by the action
of the Dislriet-Attorney, He Is hs ,.,, prose.
OF the Jury In this he lays before that