New-York tribune., 1909-06-05
PATRICK'S PLEA DENIED
His Charges BaseIess, Says Court,
Remanding Him to Prison.

Albert T Patricks twenty-third attempt to get
out Of Sing Sing Prison, where he is serving lie
term for the murder of William Marsh Rice. ended
in failure yesterday. when the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court, Brooklyn, handed down a
decision refusing 10 sustain writ of haheas corpus
which had been granted him by Justice Gaynor
and remanding him to prison 1t was early In
March that Patrick appeared in person before the
Appellate Division and made his argument for
freedom The big courtroom was packed with
prominent LAWYERS and judges who were eager TO
hear his plea. For several hours he stood before
the bench and expounded his theories as to why
he should be set at liberty.
He accused District Attorney jerome and Re
corder Goff with entering into a conspiracy with
others 10 Kill him. said that he had had no real
trial and that the courts had been unfair 10 nun
throughout He even attacked judge OF the
f-o,Ir1 of Appeals whose had been in Mr
Ieron1e's office at the time of his trial He man
tanned that he had never accepted the order OF
the lar4 Governor Higgins, which changed mis- sen
tence from death to life imprisonment and ins'S'eu
that the Communication was worse Than the orisii'ai
penalty 49,, go
Rv changing his sentence, he declared, the Gov
erpor had DESTROYED It. and had no power TO I'M
nose another He argued that the Appellate ~
vision could not send him to the desth cn7ii, "
ca,,se man could not be twice put in jeopardy u
his life Since his original sentence had been De
e,ro,-ad and since he could not be resentenceu' ne
,,.;r,.,nad that ne ought be set free and tl'''
while he was imprisoned he was being heiu iH
,,,-o,rntarv servtude without due process OF lA"
7, ,ba decision Justice jerks. who wrote 'he
onin;on declares there is no doubt that the "oN
a-ror has the power to commute sentences an"
,b.+ 3, .aen,s that there is reason why the
death renalty should not be commuted 10 IN
,-,s,-r,en+ As to Patricks contention that ''e
,,,,,,+ation is worse than the original seH'eh0e
the decision holds that the prisoner has no re" u
individual preference, and that death mas "l"fN
been held the greatest penalty Justice 'e"fN9
continues
II is hut lust TO say that there Is noLnIns 5neTea
o1-er disclosed before us that the silshSHI
refaCrs Upon the learned judge VINO ptIi ;-1 this
trial or upon the counsel for the People ~ ~ a
caea So far as the challenge is adoreSseu - .oI5
cor1position Of the Court Of Appeals naF
,bat srr[ COurr of last resort has passed -
,Inon the question. The challenge aIrdlsIls' ~ -
fetched and fancifu reasons, the presence III '''
court Of a upright judge ,. .,,.,- -,-Asapt-
The action of a dissatisfied conNict mus mus @.|$ pt ~
ing Inc courts of his conviction as 1nCollpetel.ii
,be har Of another court upon genera aS,r
nf fraud conspracy and WTongdoinR ouI 9.i %
tba orderly and dignfed administrator OF -.
Much may be excused in the relator 1I IN a. a. :
other in like situation We did not lOuh lOr ,,ers
csiT and dispa ssionate utterance that marks eI
advocacy But the people have rights as Ven 30 ao
prisoner And there is day IN court III - ~.
Z1-fio would accuse without facts and assam o|
mutation haseless save that the judgment NeHN
against him.
William L Mcdonald. Patricks counsel SAID
,s+ night that he would ask the Appellate DIVISION
for leave 10 appeal from its finding ana II that
were denied he would seek a writ OF error anu
carry the case to the United states supreme Ooui