The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-11

examination III thls city, Us tho Ind let
n,ent Is conclusive evidence as to- the
Question OF probable cause and no man S
could say TINT the constitutional rights
4 81 The nccuscd were infrlnged. One INQUIRY
As sufficient under the Constltu Ion. y he
grand Jury has spent weeks In hearing
the evidence. and had examined ~ VII HI !;
nesscs. 4s Az a result OF Z It's Inquiry, Q
considerable number OF corporations and ]
many persons had been indicted and the Il
defendants now reside In eight States.
e Judge Lewis quoted "a number OF author
tiles and cited many adj Indicated cases:
He went over and discussed sundry ex-'l5
tradition laws and cited decisions OF the
higher courts bearing on some OF them.
G Contention Of Defense.
sS@ Mr.. Ycrtrcss who was the only spea kcrs
for the defense, replied to y dgc Lewis. i
In part he said This ism case OF )
oxtraditlon. & It ID not to be llkened TO
$extraditl Ton. II crises under the peculiar.
statutes 81 the United States because e 4
OF the 4 expansc OF the country. y -
Important to decide whether q man, shall
be taken from New York TO 1lorlda--.Si
from Virginia to Tennessee S5 II III
The question which 81 your honor
hns-thc question which the statute has i'I 4
IS i m importnnt one. It has con- y
3yerted this question OF removal n hto q 4
Dues ton II what Judge LEWIS IE
says Ia Btrue--ttat whom one grand jury
has found an Indictment, there ought not
10 be two inquires--it Is Ito reasonable nl,
To insst TINT 1t is ia ptirel min sierra g. e.
thing But that Ism tho view I f' the !.
Congress has taken OF this mattel 8 = ne NJ
Isn't the view expressed in Il tne s.As
M Expressed !. by tho Supreme Cour OF
hn31Inited states, and wit all Difference a
8 think the Supreme Court has passed s
,pon this question and decided 9iss9 = y as
we insist. a judicial rat her than q min
8istertal net Is involved 40 that 5reas PIE b
protect may be given 70 HI the n i all-
fvdual.'. l,S # ~ !. y,
Nj. sanford replied at some }leng tn He
admitted that Judge Wndd!llis duty 1 Va W..
ID judicial and not q ministerial one,a " WI
insisted that ha should dec de ollly as ~ &
the suniciency OF the -
to probable cause. 5s s55g 81
IN MI tho argument only one question e
was discussed, and that cues ton. re il.
of legal phraseoogy vas sllnply thiis|'
Is3afi Indictment found III another jur1s -s5
dIction sufficient evidence OF the pr paple Es
guilt OF the person or persons !ndletea ..
ID At the conclusion OF MI. ssand tora !. 81
argument the court t9ok 9 RECESS 81 u, uh'.'
srl
announced at that hour 2 v. !. III
Iud &c Waddill's Decision.
Prom o pt 1, 4 $50 II, the afternoon Judge
ywaddili took his seat and at once Z ans
nol,nced his decision in the following
s. r. concIusI on re- ached BY the court
# Il that In proceeding for the arrest 5f5S az
and removal OF persons charged With
avolatlon OF tho avs OF the United
States, pursuant TO section 1ol4 o. the Ss5i5
Revtsed Statutes Of the United States,
before d United states district Judge,
sitting Ia the State Of Virginia, Il, S:
which State there no onger exists
q the right Of a preliminary exa N nation
upon a v crl mlnai charge prlor to the f35ti
VI trial upon the merits, hen suot7 udge ss5325
). is called upon to act as well IN the 4 a
HI natter Of the apprehension o. sueh
persons az X In their removal to the 81
a Jurisdiction In Itch they have been 5s 35s
Sssi Indicted that upon the governments &
il presentation Of a 81 ftlcIent dlctment,
1 regularly found BY a grand j ulry In q H
court OF the United States. properly 4
charging the com m lss on OF an offense
within the district In which such n .85
* dctment Is found, coupled With proof
81 Of the Identity Of the person Indicted
d IL n Is Its duty to properly ball such III
person for appearance ~ before I'D the t'4 81
81 court In whlohihe Is Indicted / or ca use SS$
him to- be removed thereto. VI 1:
Lawyers Confer.
Fl Immediately upon tho rendering OF the I
decision Mr. " SANFORD III asked that the 81
court nix the bail OF the indicted m: ASS z
and Issue wa rrants for the arrest OF tho 3
other seven. Tho coterle OF lawyers for
the defense asked for time for CONSUL e
that the court shall meet at i ! o'clock
this morning to mako up the record ana 81
In the meantime warrants were Issued for 9
g. ~. Morgan. Fortescue White, Frank
=, Vilcox, Frank s. Royster, y. Il Rice u
Smith Frank p. Danccy and Charles 7.
In the hands OF United States Marshal
Morgan 7 rea for execution. 1t IA UNDER
stood, however. that nllB Of tho mon will Il
be In court this morning to accept SER
Vice OF the warrants, and the marshal's
work will be quite easy. stj Z. 9 .fS
The Next Move.
i Tho governments attorneys Will. OF
course. press the motion that the defen-
dants be required to give satisfactory bail D
or be removed to the Middle District SDr e
Tennessee for trial. and dopbtless tho NJ
motion will prevail and the necessary
bail bonds will he given. y
In the meantime lawyers for ne de- 8
Tense will have the record perfected ae-
.cording to their notion, with the view #
Of taking the cases to the Supreme Court M
The aedf spt az s na hHs a tes
enacted by Congress-, especially. the sher-
man law Of 1900, VIII come squarely before
the supreme Court o. the United States; Il
and set there squarely for the first time
since the Congress has undertaken to
make laws to reach combinations Tin
restraint OF trade and mn,erce,' y VI III Il
Taken altogether, yesterday's proceed
ings before Judge Yaddlll. short MS they
were, probably constitute tho most inl-S
portant and far-reachlng litigation that
has come up In Virginia for many years
There can be no doubt that the defense
intends to carry the case direct to tho
United States Supreme Court. There
may be some Wrangling and warm dis
cusslon this morning over the perfection
Of tho record, but Judge yVaddill's short
and pointed decision practically ends the
matter, SO far as his court Is concerned Ii
49,