The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-14
TAKES ISSUE WITH JUDGE BROWN.
The Attorney. General Sends Bill to Con-
gress
(By the Associated Piess.)

gress.
C}y the Associated PItss.)
Washington April 13.-Some time ago
proceedings were instituted by the De-
partment of Justice to secure the removal
to Savannah, Ga, of Benjamin ID. Green,
John F.. William T. and Edward H. Gay
nor and Michael a. Connolly, who were
indicted by the grand jury of the United
States District Court Of Georgia for con-
spring to defraud the United States upon
two contracts relating to harbor improve
ments at Savannah and in Cumberland
Sound. The United States Commissioner
at New York where the defendants were
apprehended, held in effect that the GER
titled copy of the Georgia indictment. fol-
lowed by the Identification of the defend
ants, was sufficient to justify their re-
moval. District Judge Addison Brown.
however, held to the contrary and further.
that the Government was required by af-
frmative prCCf, to make out case CT
probable guilt and that the defendants
were entitled to go fully into their de-
tense and to produce evidence on their
part to. rebut the presumption of quit
raised by the proofs of the Government
The Attorney General takes issue with
Judge Brown as TO the correctness OF his
ruling, but with view to a final settle
ment CT the question has sent to the
Chairman of the Judiciary Committees
of both houses of Congress draft of a
bill. which if it becomes a law, will have
the effect Of compelling the removal of
persons indicted for offenses against the
Unite States from the place Of arrest to
the district where the offense is commit
ted
The bill is as follows:
BE is enacted etc. that where any
person. indicted for any crime or offense
against the United States in any district
shall be or be found in any other district
it shall be lawful and it is hereby made
the duty CT the district attorney of the
district in which such indictment is
found, to deliver, or cause to be delivered,
a copy OF such Indictment, certified by the
clerk Of the court in which the same is
pending to a Judge or justice of the Uni
ted States or United States commission
er in the district where such indicted
person is or may be found; and there
upon it shall be the duty of such judge.
justice or commissioner to issue to the
United States marshal of the district a
named in the Indictment, and upon the
return of the warrant with the body of
the person so named. the judge. justice or
commissioner shall, upon being satisfied
that the person arrested is the person
indicted make an order to the marshal
directing the removal of such person to
the district wherein the Indictment is
pending, and it shall be the duty of the
l>oI A,.la In, haij
able cases the Judge, justice or commits
sioner before whom such proceedings are
had may admit the defendant TO bail
for his appearance at the court to which
he is held to answer the Indictment
The Attorney General sent to Congress
with the draft of his bill, an exhaustive
argument explaining the necessity for it's
passage. In the course of his comments
upon the phrase ''agreeably to the usual
mode of process against offenders in
such State" in section 1914 Of the New
York code upon which Judge Browns de-
cision was largely based the Attorney
General says:
at is evident that under such provi-
sion of Federal law, any State, by local
enactments can make it impossible to re-
move fGueIdl OnSudSl "ho 10 "SAA"S"
to answer an Indictment in another dis
trict In this particular instance, such
impossibility is practically affected by
the difficulties surrounding the case. The
defendants are indicted for frauds upon
the Government of the gravest nature,
and Of very large extent, committed IN
connection with a trusted officer of the
engineer corps, proofs of which are spread
over five or six years of Governmental
operations at Savannah and Cumberland
Sound and involve also, to a large eX-
tent technical and scientific facts capa-
Bile of proof only by expert witnesses ana
accountants, and by the production OF d
vast mass of documentary evidence. me
witnesses to substantiate the case are
scattered throughout the United States,
and il was with exceeding difficulty they
we're marshaled for 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 a case of probable cause twice, once
before grand jury and afterwards before
a local magistrate in another jurisdiction
is imposing Il more onerous condition for
the punishment OF crime than exists
under any other form of Government.
1T is usually understood, and such is
the history Of the grand jury procedure,
that a presentment by a grand jury is
based upon proof of probable cause: that
the defendants are not entitled TO appear
or be heard in rebuttal Of the facts sub
mitted to the grand jury, and that the