Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-11-18
VICTORY FOR GOVERNMENT
Quashes Habeas Corpus Writ Of the
Circuit Court.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
District Attorney Sends Jubilant
Message to the Attorney
General.

CHIC AGO. November fS-The govern
ncut today Won another move In It's fight
tr bring 10 trial nine indicted Chicago
meat packers when Judge Kolllsaat In
the nitcd states circuit court quashed Q
writ of haoeas corpus issued several days
ago
Nftcr bearing arguments by the packers
attorneys Judge kohlsaat refused to In
terferc with The trial of the packers
scheduled 10 begin Monday in the district
court The packers appealed to the
supreme court. Judge Kohlsaat held that
,hc circuit court had no power to issue
a writ except in extraordinary circum-
stances and that in the present case it
was without the right.
TO do So" he said in his decision
would he an attempt to review the find
ns of the United States district court.
Defendants Remanded.
THE order Of the court will be to quash
the writ, remand the defendants for trial
and surrender them to their sureties.'
Levy Mayer counsel for the packers,
prayed an appeal 10 the Supreme Court
we pray an appeal and ask your honor
TO fix the amount of ball., said Attorney
Mayer.
Under the law" said 1.ttorney Sheean,
government counsel. when writ of
habeas corpus is denied II is specifically
provided that the respondent be re-
manded.
Your honors order to remand is void"
said Mr. Mayer. I'VE shall find unless
care be taken this question will be so
snatled that there can be no adjudica-
tion.
The decision means that after nine
years OF legal action the packers must
trio xI.e
Interpretation of the government counsel.
Attorneys for the packers. however con-
tend that their appeal to the Supreme
''ourt will act as stay to prevent i'm
mediate trial In the distric court.
We win on every point. the court
sustainS our contentious. was the mes
age sent by District Attorney WilkerSon
10 the Attorney General at Washington.
Judge Kohlsaat's Ruling.
In his decision Judge Kohisaat ruled
in part as follows:
The federal statutes gives petitioners
the right 10 writ of habeas corpus un-
less II appears that they are not entitled
20 it. The question of right to file pc
tition may be tested in two ways. 1t
may be presented by issue made upon
motion for leave to file or it may be pre-
sented by motion to quash the writ and
dismiss the petition.
For these reasons the motion to quash
and vacate the order granting the writ
and dismiss the petition must be grant
I'd.
From reading of cases in which the
federal habeaS corpus act has been be-
fore the Supreme Court. ii becomes APP
narent that as rule the granting of a
writ in cases in which the questions here
involved have been presented has not
been favored by that court The rule
seems to be clear that only in certain cases
gt,
viii the court separate the question in
Owed in the habeas corpus proceeding
from the trial of the case.
1t appears the petitioners rely upon
1. ..e allegations as 10 the magnitude and
volume in their business. which would en-
.alI .reat loss should the Supreme Court
aold the proceedings unconstitutional
ter the trial is had.
1t can hardly be claimed that the pos
ibillty Of loss growing out OF the trial
,uttld constitute special circumstances
eo3ttempiated in the decision of the court.
Cannot Take Jurisdiction.
1t therefore follows that this court
cannot take jurisdiction of the habeas
corpus proceedings here under the cir
cumstances now presented. Moreover. il
appears that the district court has fun
jurisdiction OF that matter. and has
passed upon that question. and 10 take
the case at this time would practically
amount 10 an attempt TO review the de-
ciSion Of that court
After rehearsIng the arguments for and
against and discussing the afiidavits filed.
the court ruled:
No serious issue of fact was raised by
the aifidavits. With reference TO the le-
salty of the surrender of the petitioners
y their bail. the court is OF the opinion
tliaf thev were for the purpose of this
proceedinS, deprived of their liberty and
entitled to apply for the writ.
The court Is further Of the opinion that
IL has the power TO cause the writ TO be
issued.