The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-12
Indicted Fertilizer Men \
Going to to Sth1est1iig hi II q n u
5l5 Courts III
.ANTl-'TRU S II u AlN'S NJ
MUST B E II s TED
Famous : Case Of y nited Sstatsi
Against Virginia arolina ] \,
Chemical Comp panyt ;,.1 and &
Others Making Rapid v;
& Strides tot Highest tS8f,3s
si5 83 Court of Land. y IS D !sSs
lIs a..,.E n. " n. l-Il..

S5 ot1 AueS " 8t1le;
8s Court Of Land 8833 ~
FAs was expected. + there was leligt s
discussion between III the yers shs
United States District Court a yesterda Ss
United States OF America Vs.. The Yirgi inia-ss
Carolina Chemical Company and otl,els.ssS ssS
wherein the government e seeks J, 70 X lie YsSSsgg
James G.. Tinsley and other d efendnMiits n b
residing In Virginia renlove $to the N ittlle s
District Of Tennessee for trial on glrd 6t1a8
tments there found gainst III them Hem
United States grand jur .Sf |.
j5Ss The lawyers repre- esenting the de fandn 8
stated when they rstt trea ched Iat
they would fight the motion for rem oval ss
to the bitter end and they lse IS
their W ord. III sf
morning To compile te he record 5Aniid HIS g Z s
order the; removal OF insle to
Tennessee for trial
Mr. Sandford the Special slstant At--S8 S#
itorney- General moved tl he court ID enter
the order removing Tins ley or y gran ting
him bail for his APPEAR rance before tf aSSss
court m Tennessee and q sked that
5be the only entry on II
SsC Counsel for ems Val ANA
SSmythe, Of Charles tom, XII being the
spokesman ed 3Y a ~ lengthy l,a per,E
5embodying the Views Y Of the d defenss pl sl Nsl
what the order sho I'D be. was ca lied lAs
acltatlon{o Of the 4 cts. and Major aniy the
stated that hs5 aim was To- get the lease
5tostheS Supreme Court q the Uniteds stated
2as quickly as posai BILE.
rangle Dyer 1; sR eco'lrd * lIld:[ s,sS
Mr.. Sand fore, wit h Jud 6 lewis
had many ical cri cislns ca
auence Of It's. III e a said u That
ssmythe had drlfted S from :ecta orlss
3of historical, N facts into the rea
sprophe as to gbbw h tile Ss oyarnr
mig Ia soIne
sofa the acts were I'M ngssser
asssTsas
with consd dernble gors IND deedss ttsssS Iis
fsuing % rornis eheco
.protracted that lat the sugg lion " ndgaas
EWaddill court was a djourned and 3coAIlssssgs All
sci held D a conf ference to try to Sag reef
upon a. statement OF facts on WI lcllE@ loSSs
base an appenl gsasSs
Court first took q ecess Of hal IN lngs
lawyers were still Wrangl Ing, 81 and J IN dgssS
IyYaddill & took another ecess Ss UNI
clock. fsSS
S The following is the record creed aupork,ss5 8;
and which Judg " Vad I'LL sign Cd
@ The United States VS.. n Tins lsy
sions az Section 1914 Of + he tied StateaaE
Revised Statutes for "a warran tS for the
removal Of ] G. Y. T lnsl ley to the Al
District of Tennessee, 81 nd comes baf0Ie5s AL
mo as follows ss4S tSSss stS
The District Attorney for this. distrGt SS
Stoge etherEwlttl Mr. e.. +. IS ford 4 counsel
for the United States, presente ed gtoa me Ea S
Ia u
United states marshal for this dlstrict.ssss ss
with the certified copy Of an lndic tnents ss
filed on May as 1906, In the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the MI eS Di s. SsS
$trct OF Tennessee, In the case sofSs the s8s
United States VS.. rginia- Carol Ina Chem
Guiding among such de efenda ants the SAID ssRs
u. VI G.. rinsley. Il;
said complaint and copy or snId ind ict-,ss
mcnt are 'made parts Of this ord der.is u pom
the exhibition OF this indlctment "a and sS
iafndnvit and the sex parte mo ton of sth 5s
counsel for the United 8 ates, ! made an #
orderifor the arrest OF said ]. 6. Tlnse Sss
ana his production before me.
The Proceed edings.
This order was d uly execut ed ha ss Is
said marshall who ARRESTED the said 81 ..SSs S
G, Tinsley and brought him before me in 3
Richmond on this 10th I. day Of Jul 900 a8
as shown by his ret turn. Vllen the acFs sSS55
,c,,sed was so brought before mo II was as
moved by the counsel Il for the 8Su Uni tted SSi 9i
states that inasnuch as the Ind dictmen tS8
charged offenses nsnin nst the nit ed stat
trIable5in the Circuit Court of aid s'S
states for tho Middle District Of TenrSgs
nessee. and the Identity OF the defendan SssSs
was admitted, thnt an order be for VI S
made for the commitment Of said ]. u 49,
5Tinsley sS for trial before said Circuit
Court. s3 &; M s.a 81 Sa5s
This motion was srlade upon The certi-
fled copy OF tho Ind dctment WI thout a X, sSg
further testimony, tho Identity 81 the 83a
party arrested and brought before Il me, ia
with the ], @. Tinsey mentioned In tn g sSs
being admitted. $ss
Position Of Defense. ssA va
e And thereupon the defendant ~ sSSJ. l3,s
.Tinsley,, offered himself rs NJ ttneess ID ssss
his own behalf, and being about to be fs
sworn, the United States, by Its COUNSEL
sthereupon objected to the witness being sI8
sworn or to any Testimony being gixellgsss
In rebuttal OF the Indictment IN thess
proceedings, on the ground that the lden,sS8
tity OF the defendant being adm mltted,. in-
as much as the Indictment on lss fneessiSs lEsa S
charges ofrenses against the l'n.leaSSi .1,s q
States committed and triahle In the juris 8g
dictlon In which the defendant STANDS Wa
indicted, no evidence ls admissible herS ~
Ia impeach the Indictment and the or
der OF commitment should be made With ~ r3te3
out other proof wv s4s
The defendants counsel thereupon Of
fered to prove by the defendant and
other witnesses than and there present "a
that the Circuit Court for the Middle VII Sgs
District Of Tennessee had no iurisdi lion S
over the person OF said defendant touch M
ing the offense charged In said ipdic
ment. In that defendant and said othesS
witnesses would, II permitted. test
that defendant IL, and has hesn for many sA
Years, a resident and citizen at.flie cst sss
81 Richmond, state of Virginia. and IN
defendant never at any time az at any "
times charged In the indictment. did 9r i N
performed. or was party g oF snxaS - s5N