Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-17
AGAINST BEAVERS
HE MUST COME HERE FOR
TRIAL.

The United States Supreme Court today
gave a decision in the cases of Beavers and
Benson which will require the attendance
in Washington of those defendants in the
suit being brought against them by the gov
eminent The court affirmed the decision
OF the courts below dismissing the wrts of
habeas corpus, and that action will permit
the removal of the defendants to this juris-
diction.
The Supreme Court demolished the con-
tention that the District of Columbia is not
a district within the meaning of the judicial
act Mr.. Justice Brown, in the Benson
case. said that the District of Columbia
was not a meaningless corporation outside
of the United States laws, but that it could
be truthfully said that the Constitution
follows the flag into the District of Column
b:a.
The Beavers decision was handed down by
Mr.. Justice Mckenna. He reviewed the
history of. the litiga ton. Beavers, he said
attacked the commitment and warrant of
the commissioner in the eastern diAtrict of
New York as not being in due process of
law, and that the commissioner who issued
them has jurisdiction to entertain pro-
ceedings against the defendant or to re-
qulre bail, or in default thereof to commit
him, because indictments were then pend
ing against Beavers in the circuit court of
the United States for the eastern district of
New York and that while indictments were
pending Beavers could not be removed to
another jurisdiction.
The two grounds of Beavers contention,
as explained by Mr.. Justice McKenna
were that Beavers held the proceedings
to be void, first, because they were an un-
lawful interference with the jurisdiction
of the circuit court for the eastern dis
trict of New York; and, second, that they
were q violation of Beavers constitutional
rights for a speedy trial by jury on such
indictment of the New York courts. The
Supreme Court says, touching this con-
tention:
moval of the appellant, and We are not
called upon to decide whether the govern
ment had the right of election without
such consent to proceed in New York or
the District of Columbia.
AS to the second contention the Supreme
Court held that undoubtedly a defendant is
entitled to speedy trial by jury in the
district where the alleged offenSe is COM
mitted. but suppose he is charged with
more than one crime. He might be guilty
of one and innocent of the other. To what
offense does his right of defense attach?
THE right of speedy trial." says the
court, lis necessarily relative. 1t does not
preclude the right of public justice. 1t can
not be claimed for one offense and prevent
arrest for other offenses, for removal pros
ceedings are but a process for arrest and
means for bringing defendants to trial.
I'VE think the findings of the Commits
sioner were justified. In other words, the
pIoOl OleIeu ny the Indictment was not
overcome, and this is all it is necessary to
now decide"
When informed this afternoon in his office
at the city hall that the Supreme Court of
the United States had decided against Beav-
ers Mr.. Morgan H. Beach, United States at
torney for the District of Columbia was
not surprised, for, he said, he expected that
the highest tribunal would decide as it did
The indications are that Beavers will not
beplaced on trial here, owing to the cond-
tlonal of the Criminal Court calender, prior
to the October term.