The Savannah morning news., 1902-08-14

Hon. Charles Langelier for the COM
plete and immediate release of the
prisoners.
The prisoners were at once released
and received the congratulations of
their friends, and the court adjourned.
Mr. MacMaster, counsel of the Unit
eo states government, was asked
whether the prosecution intended to
take any further action looking to the
extradition of Col. Gaynor and Capt.
Greene. Mr.. MacMaster replied that
he was unable to speak positively on
the subject until after a conference
with Erwin and Stewart, which was
neld to-day at the Chateau Frontenac.
Decision Read to Big Crowd.
There was a large attendance of both
legal luminaries and spectators. Mrs.
Gaynor accompanied by a number of
ladies, was present during the deliv-
edy of the judgment. Gaynor and
Greene came into court with Sheriff
Langelier.
Judge Caron assembled the bench at
1880 o'clock and began the reading Of
the very lengthy notes preceding his
judgment. The judge referred to the
case as of great Importance, if only by
ACoSCII VI Tie UNUSUAL proceedings ell
ployed, and went on to say that he
would only review his last two writs.
He then read the petitions of the pris-
oners for WritS of habeas corpus upon
which the writ was issued, in virtue
of which the prisoners were taken out
of the hands of Jailer Valee of Mon
treal. is well as the answer thereto
and the writ itself. The events imme-
diately preceding the issue of writs he
-
in Judge Andrews opinion with regard
to the sensational manner in which
the prisoners arrest was made here.
To Good to Re Attacked.
With reference to tie attacks made
upon himself, he was sure that the
American government authorities anG
their agents could have had no hand
in them. The notice of the American
governments lawyers to Jailer Valee
to attend to the delivery of Judge An
drews' judgment was then quoted and
Valee's compliance therein noted. That
Judgment ipso facto dispossessed Judge
Andrews of the prisoners and under the
circumstances he (Caron) was quite
justified in his subsequent issue of
writs of habeas corpus addressed to
Jailer Valee after he had taken pos
session of the prisoners following
Judge Andrews pronouncement.
Judge Caron next quoted authority
for his issue of writ of certiorari in
his previous judgment, and showed
that the writ of habeas corpus, never
theless, remained in force even with
out the extradition commissioner hav-
ing pronounced upon the case for the
prisoner has always right to question
the justice of his being deprived of his
liberty. American courts had taken a
similar view in the case of a forger
who was a fugitive from Quebec prov
ince.
No Conflict With Andrews.
The judge pressed the opinion that
Judge Andrews Judgment quashing his
own writ of habeas corpus did not de-
eide the merits of the case and, not
withstanding the pretersious of law
yers for the prosecution to the con-
trary, his writ in no way conf1icted
with Judge Andrews judgment, for 4
prisoner may always renew his appli
cation providing some new facts are
stated, as had been done in the present
case.
One of these referred to the absence
in the warrants of the dates at which
the offense was alleged to have been
committed, and the other an objection
to the validity of the charge of con-
" QSlIduu uIiQ0T the cXLrdQl-
ton treaty. To make the warrant
valid, the date the offense is cornmiered
must be inserted in it to prove the
commissioners Jurisdiction. Moreover,
the exact crime with which the pris-
oners are charged and the proceedings
to- be taken against them, they have
a right to know.
Comfort Found in Emo Case.
In the Emo case the offense with
which the prisoner was charged in the
extradition proceedings and that made
elsewhere did not agree. In the pres
ent case there was a distinct discrep-
ancy between the charges upon which
the various true bills against the pris-
oners were obtained in the United
States, and between them and that
made in the application for extradi-
ton. This, as well as the absence of
dates in the warrant, he held to be dis
tinctly fatal to the latter, and he there
fore upheld the prisoners claims and
their objections to the warrants, main
tanned the writ of habeas corpus and
ordered the release of the prisoners.