The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-06
LAW WOULD BE A NULLITY.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS VIEWS OF
JUDGE BROWNS DECISION.

Chief Justice MarshaH IL AuihoFl-
tv for the Contrary View of the
Law-Defendants VIII he Brought
to savannah in some Way at Az
Costs-Writ of MnndamuS Against
Judge brown May BE Asked.
"Judge Browns Interpretation of the
law will simply paraiyze the admInlstra-
tion of the national laws and bring the
processes of the United States Courts inio
utter contempt
These are District Attorney Erwin
words in discussing Judge Browns decls'
ion in the Greene-Gaynor case.
The District Attorney said last night that
he had been made to say so much that
was foolish ana absurd in a newspaper
article on the subject that the natural IN
stluct of self-preservation and a desire TO
remove from tie minds of his friends at
a distance the impress on that ne was
rapidly losing his wits. an impression ne
thought it likely enough they would have
made il essential that he should state his
views and the position of the government
so far as represented it, in full.
IL have not yet received copy Of
Judge Browns decision" said Mr.. Erwin,
but if it's full scope is expressed in the
dispatch published IN the Morning News
to-day, then l understand the Stst of the
opinion is this: That certified copy OF
an indictment, found in one district, whea
carried into another district for the pur-
pose of causing the removal of a defend
ant for trial. however perfect it may be as
pleading, is to be treated merely as an eE
parte affidavit, subject to rebuttal by op-
position testimony which the defense may
offer on the hearing for removal There
fore, since good pleading requires that the
Indictment should state the charges with
out stating the evidence which is TO De
offered on trial TO sustain them, that even
treated as an affidavit, an Indictment
charging an offense, well pleaded, amounts
practically to nothing in showing pfoDa-
bic cause of the defendants guit.
Under this interpret alton of the law
the government must carry its witnesses
to the district where the arrest is made.
and offer testimony there before the com
hitting magistrate, precisely as though
there had been no indictment found. Nov
the law codifed in section l0l4 revised
s atutes. which regulates removals in such
cases. has been in force for over hun
dred years 1t provides that for crimes
against the laws of the United States.
committed in one district, the offender
may be arrested in any other district or
The United States and imprisoned or ball
ed for appearance before the proper court
by any state magistrate, United States
commissioner or judge, 'agreeably to the
usual mode of process against Offenders
in the state where the arrest Is made,
and where any offender is committed IN
any district, other than that where the
offense is to be led, it shall be the duty
4 ~ of in xxylip
offender is imprisoned seasonably to is
sue a warrant for his removal to the
district where the trial is to be had.
The governments contention Is, that
the usual mode of process in New YORK,
where an indictment has been found by a
grand jury in a state or United States
court there is TO require the defendant to
be simply Identified as the person indict-
cd and he must then give bail to appear
before the court in which the Indictment
is pending. or go to jail to await trial.
THE government, therefore, maintains
that section 1914 would require person
arrested in New York, on an indictment
from a United States court in Georgia, to
be treated in the same way. II is only
where there is no Indictment yet found
that preliminary hearings on the merits,
with examination of witnesses and rebuff
tai Of testimony, are proper in New York
or any of the states in proceedings to hold
to bail
The practice on this subject has been
uniform and unbroken in the courts for
over hundred years. commencing with
the famous preliminary hearing in
the case of Aaron Burr tor
treason before Chief Justice Mar
shall, and running down through num-
berless decisions to the present time.
There are but three Interruptions id the
uniformity of the decisions as TO this
practice, and they ale all within the past
three or four years One is the decision
of Judge Brown. in the Dana case. an
other is decision of a Judge in Philadel-
phia, and the third is the decision of
Judge Brown in the Greene-Gaynor case.
Nov. without dscrediting the learning
and ability of the judges render these
last opinions" said the district attorney
the governments attorneys must he par
doned for still Insisting that the correct
Interpretation of the law is to be found
In the old opinions and recognized prac-
tice of the past hundred years, lately re-
affirmed in very many cases. In fact any
other view would simply parayze the
administration Of the national laws, ana
bring the processes of the United States
courts into utter contempt. The immense
cost which would be thrown on the gov
eminent, if 1t had in. every important case
TO carry its witnesses from the distri t
where a crime is committed. across the
defendant may take refuge. in order to
obtain a removal. aside from the issues
in the case at bar. makes an acquiescence
in Judge Browns decision impossible for
the government. If the decisich is the cor
rect Interpretation Of existing law then
until Congress remedies the evil the
courts of the United States will be pow
erless
However great the inconvenience and
expense may be- 90 take the great num-
Der of witnesses in the conspiracy case
to New York Gt took the court-martial
three months to take the testimony in
the Carter case the government would
not hesitate to do that, If it be necessary.
even though it cost a hundred thousand
dollars. The Attorney General may
think it more important however to
destroy the evil effect of Judge Browns
decision as a precedent. by proceeding in
another way. one thing is certain. The
government will use every legitimate
means to bring the defendants to the bar
OF Justice"
The Dana case, mentioned by District
Attorney Erwin as one in which Judge
Brown had rendered an opinion some.
what approaching the one he has just COM
mitted, does not compare with the case