New-York tribune., 1900-04-14
COVERS THE GAYNOR CASE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GRrGGS SENDS I.
BILL TO CONGRESS.
COMPELLING REMOVAL OF INDICTED PEp-
SONS TO THE DISTRICT WHERE THE
OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED.

Washington April 13.-some time ago proc...
ings were instituted by the Department Of Ju,,,~.
to secure the removal TO Savarnah Of Benfant.
d. Greene John F.. william T. and Edward y
Gaynor and Michael A Connolly who were N,
dicted by the Grand Jury OF the United States IA,
trict Court of Georgia for conspiring to def-ars
the United States two contracts relating -
harbor Improvements at Savannah and In Cunb.,
land Sound. The United States Commissioner =.
New-York where the defendants were spprehendss
held in effect that the certified copy Of the Gsorx.
Indictment. followed hy the identification Of tbs
defendants sufficient justify their renov,I
District Judge Addison Brown. however held 70 -,
contrary, and further that the Government v,
required by Affirmative proof make out es.a
of probable guilt and thas the defendants wera
entitled 20 so fully into their defence and TO oro
duce evidence on their part to reout the preslmp
ton OF guilt raised by the proofs OF the C;ovar,
ment. The Attorney-General takes issue with
Judge Brown as to the correctness OF his ruling
but with tiew 20 a finaf settlement OF the ov.-.
ton has sent to the chairman OF the judIciarv
committees OF 10th houses of Congress draft n.
a bill which, II IL becomes a law. Will compel rbs
removal OF persons Indicted for offences against ths
United States from the place OF 10 the dis,
trict where the offence is committed.
The DILL is as follows:
dicted for any crime offence agans, tas
in any other district it shall Se Lawful and Il =
hereby mace the duty OF the District-Attorney o.
eeriad Sy Of fGRs 81 sum
sioner in the district where such indicted psrso5
is or may be found: and thereupOn 1t shall be he
duty of such jadge justice or CO. eomIissioner to IS
warrant for the arrest Of the person named in the
indictment and upon the return OF the warrant
justice commissioner shall. upon being satisdsi
MAKE max 'n an PoTdsr TO tse marshai drectne h5.
moval of such person to the district wherein the
Of the marshal TO execute such order In ballads
cases. the judge, justice OF commissioner before
to bs for s ar at h s
10 which ne Is held to answer the Indictment.
The Attorney General sent to Congress with the
draft OF his bill exhaustive argument explain
ing necessity for It's passage In the course Of
his comments on the phrase "agreeably TO the
usual mode OF process against offenders in such
State in Section 1.Ol4 of the Revised Statutes oa
which Judge Browns decision largely based.
the Acknowledgement says:
! 1t is evident that under such provision Of
Federal law any State. by local enactmenls
make it impossible to remove Federal offender
who is wanted TO answer an indictment IN another
sibty is practically effected BY the difficulties
sUrreundng the case The deIendants m are are indicted
nature. and Of very large extent COMMITTED IN con-
proofs of which spread over five or six years
OF Governmental operations at Savannah and Cum
tent technical and scientific facts capable Of proof
only by expert witnesses and accountants. and by
the production of vast OF documentary evf-
dence The witnesses to substantiate the
scattered throughout the United States and IL
with exceeding difficulty they were marshalled to-
the hearing before the Grand Jury in Georgia and
that their attendance was arranged for at the trial
before the petit jury.
To compel the Government to make out
OF probable cause twice. once before grand Jury
and afterward before local magistrate in another
Jurisdiction. is imposing more onerous condition
for the punishment of crime than exists under any
other form OF government II IS usually under
stood, and such is the history OF grand Jury
procedure that a presentment BY a grand Jury .
based upon proof OF probable cause. that the te-
fendants not entitled appear be heard N
rebuttal of The facts submitted the grand jury
and that the effect of any Indictment is. not 70
raise presumption of guilt but TO require he
defendants 70 submit to trial before court and
petit jury. where every presumption ia in favor Of
their innocence. A defendant who happens
side within the district where he is indicted fs
rested and put trial without any further ir-
vestigation. No good reason can be perceived why
the fact that defendant happens 10 reside IN an
other judicial district OF the United States should
entitle him have the question Of his probable
guilt submitted to and passed upon by local
MAGISTRATE before any force effect whatever
shall be given to the presentnent OF the grand jury
which is the legal and constitutional body entitled
to present him for trial