The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-12
JUDGE BAKERS DECISION.


Following is the text OF Judge Bakers
opinion:
ION the petition OF Thomas Walsh a writ
of habeaS corpus was Issued In this case,
detention of the petitioner by virtue of a
writ issued by United States COMMISSIONS
Shields i'm the Southern district of New
York, addressed to any marshal of the
United States, and commanding him TO ar
rest and bring before the commissioner for
hearing one James Lynchehaun as a per-
son who had been convicted in Ireland of
the offense of assault with intent to kill,
and who had escaped with the sentence un-
executed.
'The exceptions of the petitioner chal-
lenge the legality OF this writ, which was
the only justification set up in the return.
CONTROLLING QUESTION.
Passing over those objections that go
to the formality of the writ, and the ques-
tons presented as TO the scope that this
hearing on habeas corpus might take, 1
come to the one question that seems to me
controlling, and that is the power of the
COMMISSIONS in the Southern district of
New York to issue a warrant upon which
the marshal of this district may lawfully
arrest the accused and return him to the
court of the commissioner in New York.
The solution or that question depends upon
the terms of the existing treaties between
this country and Great Britain and the
statute of the United States enacted TO
garry liz DIONlS u SUIT ItdltS lUlO
effect If a construction of the statute
and treaties had been given by the Supreme
Court OF the United States to the effect
that a commissioner of one district can
cause the arrest of an accused person at
any place he nay be found within the SOW
ereignty Of the United States and brought
to New York, / would be constrained to
follow such an Interpretation. No decision
OF the Supreme Court TO that effect has
been cited, and my own examination of
the authorities has failed to disclose one.
Certain decisions In courts OF the United
states have been referred TO. In the Hen
rich case, In 5 Blackf. 414, IL Fed. Cas-. p
I1S. IL was expressly decided that a war
rant issued and returnable In New York
cousin, and that the return of the accused
person from Wisconsin to New York for
the purpose of the extradition hearing was
warranted by the treaties and statutes.
NOT INVOLVED.
In the case of Re Fergus, so Fed. Rep.
6O7, the Heinrich case is referred TO, but
the question was not In any way involved
in the case. and IL does not appear that
the court in that instance made an indie
pendent examination Of the treaties and
statutes for the purpose of forming and
announcing a Judgment of his own. The
citation of the Heinrich case in the Fergus
case Is simply a passing ~allusion.
THE case OF In re Berauch. IL Fed. 472,
is also referred to. but i'm that case the
question was not raised and decided. nor
was the matter contained I'm the dictum i'm
the view of the decision of the Heinrich
case. The Berauch case simply SLOWS that
New Jersey TO New York and was dis
charged I'm New York because the showing
against him was not sufficient. The case
exhibits circumstances under which the
question now presented might have been
raised, but IL was not.
J In Girl. va. Shine, Isl U. s. Isl. the Hen