The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-11-18
HIVEN&EIV 6VVE VV !
Judge KOhlsaat Quashes Writ
of Habeas Corpus
Issued to Indicted Men Several
Days Ago.
AN APPEAL is TAKEN
The Case viii Be Carried to
the Supreme Court.
Court Refuse to Interfere in
n APPEAL is TAKEN
Court Refuse to Interfere in
Any Way With Trial.

Chicago, Nov 18-The government
won another move in its fight to bring
to trial nine indicted Chicago meat
packers when Judge Kohlsaat in the
United States circuit court quashed a
writ of habeas corpus issued several
days ago
Judge Kohlsaat held that the cir
cult court had no power to issue a
writ except in extraordinary circum-
stances and in the present case was
without the right.
ITO do So" he said in his decison.
would be an attempt to review the
finding of the United States district
court.
1.-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 to the supreme court.
I'VE pray an appeal and ask your
honor to fix the amount of ball. said
Attorney Mayer.
Under the law said Attorney
Sheean, government counsel. when
writ of habeas corpus is denied it is
specifically provided that the respond
ent be remanded.'
Your honor's order to remand is
void" said Mr.. Mayer. we shall find
unless care be taken this question will
be so snarled that there can be no ad-
judication.
What the Decision Means.
The decision means that after nine
years of legal action the packers must
go to JrIaI next Monday according to
the Interpretation of the government
counsel. Attorneys for the packers,
however, contend that their appeal to the
supreme court will act as a stay to
prevent immediate trial in the district
I'VE win on every point. The court
sustain 'ur contention" was the mes
sage sent by District Attorney Wilker-
son to the attorney general at Wash
ington-
Ia his decision Judge Kohsaat ruled
in part Is follows:
THE federal statutes give petitioners
the right to a writ of habeas corpus
unless it appears that they are not en-
titled to it, The question Of right to
file a petition may be tested IN two
ways. Tt may be presented by issue
made on motion for leave to file or it
may be presented by motion to quash
the writ and dismiss the petition"
After rehearing the arguments for
and against and discussing the affida-
Wits filed the court ruled:
mo serious issue of fact was raised
by the aff1davits. With reference to
the legality of the surrender of the
petitioners by their bail, the court is
of the opinion that they were for the |
purpose of this proceeding, deprived OF
their liberty and entitled to apply for
the writ"
THE court is further of the opinion |
that it has the power to cause the writ 4
to be issued. From reading of cases /
in which the federal habeas corpus /
act has been before the supreme court, /
it becomes apparent that as a 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 where excep- /
tionaI circumstances arise, will the
court separate the question involved in
the habeas corpus from the trial of the
case It appears the petitioners rely /
On allegations as to the magnitude and
volume of their business which would
entail endless hardship and great loss
should the supreme court hold the pro-
unconstitutional after the
trial Is had.
at can hardly be claimed that the
possibility Of loss growing out of the
trial would constitute special circum-
stances as contemplated in the de-
eision.
TT therefore follows that this court
,an not take jurisdiction of the haheas
corpus proceeding here under the cir
cumstanceS now presented Moreover
It appears the district court has full
Jurisdiction of that matter and has
passed on that question and to take
The case at this time would practically
amount to an attempt to review the
decision of that court
For these reasons the motion to
1uash and vacate the order granting
The writ and dismiss the petition must
be granted"
After hearing arguments from the
packers attorn eys, Judge kohlsaat re-
fused to interfere with the trial of
he packers scheduled to begin Mon
lay in the district court. The packers
to the supreme court.