The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-22
CRITICISMOFJUDGE GEO. " RAY
FOR NOT PASSING PROMPTLY
ON THE GREEN CASE.

OF Justice CriticiZes Him for His "Un.
reasonable and Unnecessary" Delay.
WASHINGTON, May n .-Caustio criticism
Of Judge George w. Ray Of the United States
Court for the Northern District Of New
York for his unreasonable and unneo-
essavy" delay in passing on the case Of
former State Senator George L. Green OF
Binghanton Is contained in the brief which
Solicitor-General Hoyt has filed with the
Supreme Court In support Of his motion
TO dismiss Green's appeal from Judge
Rays decision. The case was pending
before Judge Ray nearly fifteen months,
eight of which were occupied in reaching
a decision, which delay brought from tho
DEPARTMENT Of Justice the extremely I'm.
u-ual course Of serving upon the Justice
a petition in writing requiring an early
determination.
Green was indicted in this cit y In October,
1903 on charges OF conspirng to defraud
the Government in connection with the
purchase OF Doremus canceling machines
and Bundy time recorders for the Post
Office Department and with bribing George
Beavers in connection with the former
transactions. Two additional indict-
ments alleging bribery and conspiracy
we're afterward returned against him, but
his arrest at Binghamton on Nov. o. 1903,
was based on the three first named.
United States Commissioner Hall, before
the proceedings we're held, refused to accept
the certified copies Of the indictments as
evidence for removal for trial, but upon the
submission by the Government of the testi-
mony in support Of the charges, on Feb. IS,
the Commissioner committed Green for
removal. Green, the same day, applied to
Judge Ray for wrts of habeas corpus. which
we're issued and he was released on bail,
but for one cause or another" says the brief,
the hearing was postponed until June 80,
1904. Notwithstanding the repeated requests
Of the Government for prompt action.
Judge Ray had the case under consid-
Grafton for eight months. despite the fact
that the Supreme Court on April IL, 1904.
in the Beavers-Henkel case passed upon
the same question raised by Green, namely,
that the copy of the indictment was sufficient
cause for removal for trial. 1t was not until
March 10. this year. that Judge Ray rendered
his decision Diminishing the writs OF habeas
corpus, but on April he granted three
appeals from his decision to the Supreme
Court.
As sOOu db tue IeQulIcu uotlCo COulu 10
given the Government asked the Supreme
Court to dismiss the appeals or affirm Judge
Rays decree, this motion being submitted
last Monday. The urgency Of the case is
referred to by Solicitor-General Hoyt. in
view of the fact that as the Supreme Court
will adjourn from May 20 until Oot 10,
unless the appeals can be disposed Of at
the present term, more than two years will
have elapsed In an effort to secure Green's
removal
The Solictor-General's brief asserts
that there is no merit in the appeals; that
all the questions raised were fully decided
by the court in the Beavers case, and that
they are presented solely for tho purpose
OF delay. In referring to Judge Rays
failure to dispose OF the case promptly
the Solicitor.Genera says
II the Federal courts are to counte-
nance and encourage such unreasonable
and unnecessary delays in cases in which
the executive arm of the law is seeking to
bring persons charged with o.fenses against
the laws Of the United States to a speedy
trial 1t is manifest that the Government is
practically powerless to prevent them
Although the Government did every
thing in its power to secure a prompt hear
ing, it was repeatedly postponed, and after
their submission and despite the extraor-
binary method adopted of serving upon
Judge Ray a petition requiring an early
decision, and that there was apparently
nothing to prevent the Court from render
lng its judgment within reasonable time.
ali the questions of law having been already
decided by the Supreme Court, it required
eiyht months to secure action. The IN
oalIed for delay had quito seriously ham,
rerad and interfered with the Government
n the prosecution of the Post Office cases.
We therefore feel that the public in
elests demand that we put forth an effort
TO secure, if possible, recognition by this
he Suprene) Court OF the right OF the
90, eminent to have cases of this character
speedily determined by the courts issuing
lie writs, in order that the Governrben
nay have such cases promptly brought
before the court of last resort for final
determination. We respectfully submit
that the Department of Justice ought
rot to be required to apply to this court
Tor writ Of mandamus in order
10 avoid a situation such as the
Government has been confronted with in
'tese cases, and we confidently believe
that an expression from this court to the
effect that when writs of habeas corpus
are issued for the removal proceedings,
the Government is entitled to speedy
determination of such cases will in the
future prevent such unreasonable de-
avs and will at the same time materially
'end to the preservation of those cordial
relations which ought to and do exist be-
tween the three great branches Of no
Government
at must be manifest to this court that
the Executive Department of the Gov
ornment. naturally would be most reluctant
20 resort to an extraordinary proceeding
ny way Of mandanus for the purpose Of
requiring judicial officer Of the, Govern
nent to perform within reasonable time
II duty which the law requires him to per
form, namely, to decide without unneoes-
tary delay case Of great interest and
importance to the Government. We have.
therefore, deemed it proper, after much
serious reflection, to respectfully suggest
to this court the propriety Of It's taking
occasion in these cases to remind the in
ferior Federal courts of the great necessity
fer speedy hearing and determination
If cases of this cha rae ter."