Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-11

THE PETITIONERS FIN
LETTER DEFENDED FROM THE
ATTACKS MADE UPON HIM IN
THE PETITION-PHILA
CAPABLE OF FURNISHING A
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY.
Philadelphia, Pa, January 10.-The
Supreme Court to-day. in an opinion
handed down by Chief Justice Storrett,
dismissed the application in the Quay
conspiracy case for writ of certiorari
and placed the costs on the petitioners
The petition of the defendants, Unit
ed States Senator NJ. S. Quay, r. R.
Quay and Benjamin j. Haywood, aver
red that on account of political prejud-
ices they were of the belief that they
trial in the Philadelphia court of Quar-
ter Sessions where the suit against
them was instituted
There was no dissenting opinion. The
charge against the defendants is that
of conspiracy, with John S. Hopkins,
the cashier of the Peoples Bank (who
committed suicide in March lasD, in
the misuse of State funds on deposit in
that bank. The defendants were placed
| under arrest in October last, and as a
result of a preliminary hearing entered
bail for trial.
The court in its opinion holds that it
has no authority to review the action
of the court below on the demurrers
and the motion to quash. The court
says the only other contention of the
petitioners that requires notice is that
they cannot have a fair and impartial
trial in the court of Quarter Sessions
OF Philadelphia county, where the in
dictments are still pending on issues of
fact raised by the defendants pleas of
mot guilty." On this point the court
says:
1--WE cannot assent to this PROPOSE
ton. On the contrary, we are satisfied
that the petitioners can and will have
a fair and impartial trial in that court
before a competent and unprejudiced
judge and fair and impartial jury. If
we thought otherwise, we would not
hesitate moment to send the indict-
ments to another jurisdiction for trial.
The learned judges who, BY virtue of
their commissions as judges of the four
separate Common Pleas Courts of this
county, are judges of the courts of Oyer
and Terminer and Quarter Sessions If
the peace. etc. are twelve in numoer and
sit in said courts n pursuance of previous
assignment Under the constitutional pro-
vision. Under ills arrangement the judges
who held the CrTninal courts in November
last will probably not be required 10 sit
therein for several months thereafter. OF
the twelve judges who thus in turn hold
the criminal courts, only two are subjects
of complaint in the petition for the rule
One of these Judge Gordon) resigned his
commission and thus severed his connec-
ton with the common pleas courts before
the petitioners fled their demurrers and
motion to quash. AS to what he is alleged
to have done while he held his commission
it is difficult to say what, if any, effect
it may have in preventing or even tend
ing to prevent the petitioners from having
fair and impartial trial before either
of the other judges now in commission.
The only apparent objections to the
other learned judge (Finletter) who right
ly took the place of his colleague when
the latter resigned, are that he did not
dispose of the demurrers and motion to
quaSh in the manner that petitioners
claim he should have done, and that he
has a son who is a member of the bar
and holds a position in the District At
torney'S office. These objections We're
uncalled for and require no comment
further than to say that in his opinion
everything the demurrers and denying the
motion to quash. he clearly and fearlessly
stated his reasons for so doing and We
see no reason whatever to question his
integrity of purpose and he is too well
known and too highly respected in this
community and elsewhere to require any
vindication at our hands.
When the twelfth of December was
agreed upon as the time for trial of the
indictments it was well understood that
other judges would hold the December
sessions of the criminal courts and
months would probably elapse before it
would again come the turn of the learned
president of Common Pleas No. 3 (Finlet-
teri to serve in said courts. When the
petition was granted on December 9Th,
1873, a speedy trial was in prospect on
the following Monday before one of the
learned judges then holding the criminal
courts. against neither of whom was there
then or since a breath of complaint and
we have no reason to doubtsthat fair and
1
be empanelled for the trial of the several
indictments.
Without further reference to other
features of the case, our conclusion is that
there appears to be no sufficient reason
10 justify the issuance of a certiorari. The
rule 10 show cause is therefore dis
charged and the petition is dismissed at
the costs of the petitioners