The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-07

ton 10l4 of the Revised Statutes
which has been the law since the first or
ganiZation of the courts of the United
States. This provides
For any crime or offense against the
United States, the offender, by any JUS
tice or judge of the United States, or by
any commissioner of a circuit court to
take ball. or by any chancellor judge of
a supreme or superior court, chief or
first judge of common pleas, mayor of a
city, justice of the peace, or other magis-
trate, of any state where he may be
found, and agreeable TO the usual mode
of process against offenders in such state.
and at the expense of the United States,
be arrested and imprisoned, Or bailed, as
The 'case may be, for trial before such
court of the United States as by law has
cognizance of the offense And where any
offender or witness is committed in any
district other than that where the offense
IS 10 be tried, il shall be the duty of the
Judge of the district where such offender
or witness is imprisoned, seasonably to
issue and OF the marshal to execute
warrant for his removal to the district
where the trial is to be had
Now what practice would be agreeable
to the usual mode of process against Of
lenders in the state of New York after
indictment found? Would it be to cause
the arrest of the prisoner before com
hitting magistrate, and for that official
10 go behind the indictment and to in
quire II the grand jury had probable cause
for its action? Assuredly not. Then it is
plainly violative of the statute Just quot
ed IL II is done in case of valid indict-
ment, prosecuted by the government. For
| OBVIOUS reasons 1 shall make no further
reference to the particular investigation
winch resulted in the Indictment for con-
| splracy referred TO, but it will suffice to
| say that when a grand jury of the United
| States Court has found valid Indictment
| II lis action is to be reconsdered and re-
| viewed by a United States Commissioner
| before he will determine whether the pro
| cess of the court can be made effective
II VIII superadd an additional trial to
| those investigations which have from time
| immemorial been regarded as sufficient
| 1t VIII not only entail enormous expense
| upon the government in the transportation
| OF Witnesses to different localities
but will practically endow a
subordinate officer with the power to de-
| termine whether there shall be an effective
arrest, production of the accused before
the court having Jurisdiction and speedy
| administration and enforcement OF the
| criminal law.
Now do not doubt that the Honorable
| the Attorney General of the United Sta e.
| is fully alive to the Importance of this
| matter, but since it has been brought tl
| my knowledge that there is what seems to
| be an Interference with the process of els
| court, with a possibility that the action
of its grand jury may be reversed and SCI
| aside upon the facts by a United States
| commissioner I have felt it my official
! duty to submit these representations for
! your consideration and such action as you
| may deem proper.
! l venture further to suggest that l.
| would be proper to direct that the Legal
). representatives of the government in New
/ York city should be required to produce
! nc HG1 T-s4f@
! States commissioner, but before a judge Of
a court having equivalent jurisdiction with
! that of the court in which the indictment
| has been found, in the language of the
| statute, 1.-THE judge of the district wher.
| such offender or witness is imprsone J.. .
l. for his appropriate action, and if a valid
indictment is produced and the idenifca-
| ton of the parties accused is made, if for
| any unforeseen and Unanticipated contir-
| gency it should be still determined 10 go
| behind the Indictment and investigate the
| case anew in New York city. that applica-
| ton to the Supreme Court of The United
! States should be made in order tina it
may be determined by the highest author
! ity whether the practice hereinhefore de-
scribed is maintainable by law, or toler-
able under our national judicial system.
! So serious do 1 regard this issue to the
! faithful execution of the national laws,
| that, with great Difference. [ take
the liberty to make this fur
Their suggestion. If the judicial
Interpretation Of the statutes and the
common law should finally justify the
practice of going behind valid indict-
ment found in another district to inquire
| If the facts show probable cause for the
! action of the grand jury, that it would be
| salutary if you should make a recommen-
dation to Congress 10 amend sec ion 1914 OF
! the revised statutes, 50 as to provide in
! all cases that a certified copy of valid
! indictment, found in a United States court
! having Jurisdiction in one district, when
| produced before the district judge of an
| other district, shall be taken as conclu-
! sive evidence Of sufficient probable cause
! of guilt of the defendant, when he is iden-
! titled as the person so indicted, for the
! purpose of arrest. holding to bail and for
| issuing warrant for transportation in de-
| fault of bail to appear at the court in
which the indictment is found.
! l have the honor to remain Mr.. Presi-
| dent with profound respect Your ODE
! dent servant, Emory Speer,
United States District Judge
|
ANOVD PIECE OF MUSIC.