The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-03
PASSED ON SAME QUESTIONS.
hut Judge Speer's Decision Was the
Reverse of Judge Browns.

Reverse of Judge Browns. M
In connection with the question of
Judge Addison Browns decision, refus-
ing to order the removal of b. D. Greene
and the Gaynors to Savannah for trial,
after an Indictment had been found
against them in the United States Court
here, ID may be interesting to know that
Judge Speer had this identical question
before him nearly fifteen years ago, when
he was first appointed Judge. Ii was in
the case of Roberts VS.. Kelley, reported
in the Twenty-fourth Federal Reporter,
page 1872 il was perhaps the first i'm
portant case he decided after his appoint
ment to the bench. In that case Mr.. Rob
erts, who was a banker in Augusta. was
accused of crime alleged TO have been
committed in the state of New York He
was a man of prominence and when Reil-
ey, who was a sheriff's officer from New
York state came out with a requisition
for his arrest, a write of habeas corpus
was sued out from Judge Speer's court by
the counsel representing Mr.. Roberts, and
ID will be seen from an examination of the
opinion that the precise questions were
raised about which Judge Brown and
Judge Speer now differ. Counsel for Mr.
Roberts were such distinguished lawyers
as J. G. c. Black, Hook e. Montgomery
George A. Mercer and H. D. D. Twiggs
Counsel in favor of the extradition were
Frank II. Miller, Chisholm & Erwin and
Boykin Wright The case was argued
with great care at Savannah The in
dictment was attacked as invalid. Proof
was offered before Judge Spear TO show
| that Roberts was innocent and Mot guilty
| as indicted in New York, and it was, also
! denied that he was a fugitive from JUS
fIa Of 4
in the decision of Judge Brown. On those
subjects Judge Speer held as follows:
'It is further objected to the legality
! of this detention that the indictment does
not properly allege the ownership of the
| bonds alleged to have been stolen, and
| that the allegation that they were the
1 bonds of the Bethlehem Iron Company,
without alleging the corporate charac-
! ter Of such company, is a fatal defect.
/ Unquestionably there is authority pointing
! to this conclusion After careful and
anxious consideration of this question the
! court feels 1t to be improper that It
should discharge the defendant on this
ground, and thinks it in every view safer
| and the better rule to remit the ques-
| ton of the sufficiency of the Indictment
10 be tried and determined by the courts
! of the state in which it Is found The
| settled policy Of the government being to
facilitate the extradition of fugitives
charged with crime, and. IN view of the
| great importance of this policy TO the
commercial prosperity of the country
and the integrity Of business transactions
| between the citizens of the several states,
1t would be a dangerous precedent, as well
in conflict with eminent authority, 20 hold
! that such matters of technical irregular
! ity must deny the eXtradition.
Certain affidavits are also offered by
the relator the practical effect of which
is a denial of guilt. II is sufficient &c
say THAI the court in this proceeding will
not consider that question. A proper
| charge of crime having been present ted
to the court, II Is our undoubted duty to
decline to investigate the guilt or inno-
cence of the prisoner. The authorities
upon this question are numerous, conclu-
sive and adverse to the contention Of the
counsel for relaior. II would be otherwise
were the arrest made upon preliminary
| process and before Indictment. In thas
event investigation would be had. al
least, to disclose II there be arprosecutior
in good faith, and II there be probable
cause to suspect the guilt Of the party
| accused"
Thus 1t will be seen that Judge Speel
makes the distinction as 40 the proper
proceedings before and after Indictment
which Judge Brown as distinctly ig.
nores.
In the case of Roberts. Judge speer fur
|
1T is further urged. and with great OPP
parent confidence by the distinguishes
counsel for the relator that the facts do
not show that the relator is a fugitive
from Justice 1t is the opinion of the court
that one who goes into a state and COM
mits a crime. and then returns home IS as
much a fugitive from justice as though he
| had committed a crime In the state IN
which he resided and then fed to some
| other state"
| AS a result of this decision, Mr.. Rob-
erts. although a man Of great wealth and
| influence, was Immediately turned over to
| the New York sheriffs officer to be car
ried there for trial An appeal was taken
| from Judge Speers decision to the circuit
| Justice, who was the Honorable W. b.
Wood. associate justice of the Supreme
| Court, and by that eminent jurist Judge
| Speer was affirmed. Another appeal was
Immediately taken from the decision Of
| Justice Wood to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and the Supreme Court Of
the United States affirmed theydeclsion OF
| Justice Wood and Of course Judge Spe r.
| JIG u. s.. D. 80, and thus the law was set
| tied. Since that case was brought up by
| habeas corpus, both the government and
| the defendant had the right to take an ar
peal from the decision OF the lower court.
but in the proceedings before the commits
sioner and Judge Brown ln the
| Gaynor case in New York, 10
which Judge speer promptly directed the
attention Of the president as an improper
| Interference with the due execution of
the law, the government has no appeal.
/ and unless the remedial legislation which
Is propose1 by congress Is enacted IL Is
probably that Greene and the Gaynors
who are indicted as co-conspiraio wi h
Capt. Carter (who is already convlcted)