The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-14
ASKS FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
RESULT OF DECISION IN CASE OF
GREENE AND GAYNOR.

Iudee Brown, But to Settle the
Matter Asks Congress to Pass "a
Inv which VIII Insure the Re-
moVaI of Defendants on Indict-
ment-Unfair to Make Government
show Probable Cause Twice.
Washington April 13-Some time ago
nr5ceedings were instituted by the depart
nent of justice TO secure the removal to
Savannah of Benjamin D. Green, John F.,
william T. and Edward H. Gaynor, who
were indicted by the grand jury of the
United states District Court of Georgia
for aouspring TO defraud the United States
on TWO contracts relating to harbor i'm
provemcnts at Savannah and in Cumber-
land Sound.
The United States commissioner at New
York. where the defendants were appre-
hended, held in effect that the certified
copy Of the Georgia indictment, followed
BY the Identification of the defendants,
was sufficient to justify their removal
District Judge Addison Brown, how
ever, held to the contrary and, further,
that the government was required by af-
frmatiye proof, to make OUT case of
probable guilt and that the defendants
were entitled to go fully into their de-
tense and to proouce evidence on their
part 10 rebut Ghe presumption of guilt
raised by the proofs of the government.
The Attorney General takes issue with
Judge Brown as 10 the correctness of his
ruling, but with a view to a final settle
meut of the question, has sent to the
chalrmen of the Judiciary Committees of
both houses of Congress a draft of a bill |
which, If it becomes a law, will have the
effect of compelling the removal of per-
sons indicted for offenses against the
United States from the place of arrest
TO the district where the offense is COM
mitted,
The Proposed Legislation.
The bill is as follows:
BE it 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 |
1t shall be lawful, and it is hereby made
the duty of the district attorney of the |
district in which such Indictment is found
10 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 Unit |
ed States or a United States commits |
sioner in the district where such indicted !
person is or may be found; and thereupon |
it shall be the duty of such Judge Justice |
or commissioner to issue to the |
United states marshal of the district !
a warrant for the arrest of the |
person named in the indictment, and upon /
the warrant with the body of the person |
so named, the judge. justice or commits |
sloner shall upon being satisfied that the
person arrested, is the person indicted, |
make an order 20 the marshal directing |
the removal of such person to the district 1
wherein the indictment is pending, and it |
snail he the duty of the marshal to eX- |
eeute such order In bailable cases sthe |
Judge, justice or commissioner before |
Whom such proceedings are had, may ad- |
NIT the defendant to bail for his appear |
ance at the court to which he is held |
to answer the Indictment"
Necessity for Such a Law.
The attorney general sent to Congress
with the draft of his bill an exhaustive |
argument explaining the necessity for its |
passage.
In the course Of his comments upon the |
Ph ase agreeably to the usual mode of |
process against offenders in such state"
IN section lOl4 of the New York code upon |
"hich Judge Browns decision was large
based, the attorney general says
~ Is evident that under such a pro- |
VISION Of federal law, any state, by local |
ments, can make it impossible to re-
move federal offender who is wanted to
answer an indictment in another district |
sllIiy Is practically effected by the diff
Hcu ties surrounding the case
Inc defendants are indicted for frauds |
upon the government of the gravest ma
,u'e and of very large extent, commit ed |
IN connection with a trusted officer of the |
engoeer corps, profs of which are spread |
over ilVe or six years Of governmental op-
t'aUons at Savannah and Cumberland |
soUnd and involve also, to a large extent |
u-nncal and scientific facts, capable Of
PROOF only by expert witnesses and ac-
c0uhtauts and by the production o. a vast
amount OF documentary evidence. The |
Witnesses to substantiate the case are
se'Uerod throughout the United States.
HHl 1t was with exceeding difficulty they
We're marshalled for the hearing before
,H' grand jury in Georgia and that
..'i attendance was arranged for at the
''io before the, petit jury.
HardshiD on the Government.
To compel the government TO make out
u case Ofprobable cause twice once before |
siand jury and afterwards before a l5-
t'I magistrate in another jur s1iction, Il |
imposing a more onerous condition for the
punishment of crime than eXiss under
eHl other form of government.
, l is usually understood and such is
me history of grand jury procedure, that
resentment by a grand jury is based
ep'n proof of probable cause, that the de-
,'"d1nts are not entitled to appear or be
h'aId in robuttal of the facts submitted
10 the grand jury, and that the effect 'of
HN Indictment is not to raise a presump-
ZION OF guilt, but to require the defend
"N'7 10 submit to trinI before n court and
jury where every presumption is in
''|of OF their innocence.
defendont who happens to reside
"'nln the district where he is indicted,
'irested and put on trial without any
"i'Aer investigation. No good reason can
NNyhR h.a faa hat do grt.l-
.'' happens 90 reside in another judicial
u,S.rlct of the United States should en-
'' MN TO have the question Of his prob
Ae guilt submitted to and passed upon
~ local magistrate before any force or
''''l Whatever shall be given 10 the pre-
iuent Of the grand jury. which is ,he
-'' ana constitutional body entitled to
present him for trial"
Operators Demands Granted.