Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1899-01-12
Tie QUAY Case.

The Quay Case.
To the Supreme Court of the State
sitting in Philadelphia, last Saturday,
the arguments for and against granting
the writ asked for in the case of the
Commonwealth versus NJ. S. Quay etal
was arged.
d. T. Watson, OF Pittsburg. lead off
in very ingenious and sophistical
argument for the defendants; Graham,
of Philadelphia, ably and fully answered
him; and Shapley, of Philadelphia,
made monkey of himself. 1t was an
extraordinary proceeding, the first writ
of the kind asked OF the Supreme Court
since the adoption of the new con-
stitution, and its object was to delay
proceedings in the case and if possible
secure change of venue.
The Court held the matter until Tues
day morning when as the justices took
their seats, Chief Justice Sterrett said;
''In the petition of NJ. s. Quay, Richard
R. Quay and Benjamin F. Haywood,
| the rule is discharged and the petition
dismissed at the cost of the petitioners.
The case was thus disposed of with
the brevity usual in cases of no public
importance, but the effect of these few
words was electrical on the persons IN
the court room. Most of the spectators
were Quay adherents, and for time
| they were stunned.
The trial will now take place in the
court of quarter sessions, of Philadel-
phia. as soon as the district attorney
and the court are ready. 1t is possible
that the case may not be called for trial
until the Fe bruary term of court.
THE DECISION.
The decision filed, after disposing OF
the legal points raised continues.
eve are clearly of the opinion that
we have no authority whatever IN this
proceeding to review the action of the
court below on the demurrers and mo-
ton to quash, and we, therefore, ex-
press no opinion in realition thereto.
THE only other contention of the pc
titioner that requires notice is that they
cannot have fair and impartial trial in
I the court Of Quarter Sessions OF the
peace of Philadelphia county where said
indictments are still pending on issue of
fact raised by their pleas of Not
guilty.
I'VE 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 the court be-
fore a competent and unprejudiced
| Judge and a fair and impartial jury
| If we thought otherwise we would not
hesitate a 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 in
| this cnunty, are judges of the courts OF
Over and Terminer and Quarter Sess
ion of the peace, etc, are IL in number
and sit in said courts in pursuance of
| previous assignment under the consti-
| tutional provision, by which, for ex-
ample, a Judge of Common Pleas No. l
| and a Judge of Common Pleas No.
| without designating either of them by
| name) will be assigned to hold the
criminal courts during the next March
sessions, and judge of Common Pleas
| No. and a judge of Common Pleas
No. g will be assigned to hold said
courts during next April sessions, and
so on throughout the year.
THE judges of the respective courts
from which these assignments are made
arrange among themselves as to which
of them will go in;o the Criminal court
or in case of sickness or necessary abb
sence one of the other judges of the
Court of Common Pleas from which
the assignments are made for that ses
sion may take the place of the sick or
absent Judge, etc. Under this arrange
ment the judges who held the Criminal
courts in November last will probably
not be required to sit therein for seyer-
al months thereafter.
'tOf the 12 judges whom thus in
turns hold the Criminal courts, only
two are subjects of complaint in these
petitions for the rule. One of these re-
signed his commission, and that
severed his connection with Common
Pleas No. and all the other courts
before the petitioners filed their de-
murrers and motion to qua5h. 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 tending to prevent
the petitioners from having fair, i'm
partial trial before either of the other
Judges now in commission.
''The only apparent oobjections to the
| other learned Judge who rightly took
the place of his colleague when the lat
ter resigned are that he did not dispose
of the demurrers and motion to quash
in the manner that petitioners claim
should have been done, and that he has
| a son who is member of the bar and
holds position in the district attorney $
Office. These objections were uncalled
for, and require no comment further
than to say that in the opinion overrul-
ing the demurrers and denying the mo-
ton to quash he clearly and fearlessly
stated his reasons for 80 doing, and we
see no reason whatever to question his
integrity of purpose, and he Is too well
known and to highly respected in that
community and elsewhere to require
any yindication at our hands.
| when December II was agreed up
on as the time for the trial of the indict-
ments it was well understood that other
Judges lone from Common Pleas No. A
and one from Common Pleas No. Il
would hold the December sessions of
the Criminal court, and that months
would probably elapse before it would
again come the turn of the learned pres
ident of Common Pleas No. 3 to serve
in said courts. When the petition was
presented and rule to show cause with
stay of proceedings was granted on
December 8, 1898. IL speedy trial was in
prospect on the following Monday, be-
fore one of the learned judges then
holding the Criminal court, against
neither of whom was there breath of
complaint; and we have no reason to
doubt that fair and impartial juries
could then, and can now, be empannel
led for the trial of the several indict-
lnents Without further reference to
-. e .l..