Omaha daily bee., 1911-11-19
They Contend that the Order to
Remand is Void.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Judge Rules that District Court Has
Full Jurisdiction In Matter.
HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW IT
Lower Court Passed on All aues-
tioAn of Fact and Judge KOhiaaat
Refused 90 Interfere vita
Trial, Set for Monday.

CHICAGO, Nov. 16--Nine Chicago pack
crs were baked today In their effort to
escape trial on a charge of criminal vlo<
latlon OF the sherman antitrust law,
when Judge Kohlsaat quAshed writ OF
hsbeas corpus and directed that an order
bo entered remandins the petitioners to
their original sureties.
The action OF the Judge, the COVER 1nent
attorneys assert makes certain that tho
trial OF teh packers viii proceed Monda"
morning before Judge Carpenter. -,
Judge Kohlsaat held that the olreNeo
court had no power to issue a writ exceptN.
In extraordinary circumstances and that
in the present case was without the
right. "To do So" he said in his decision,
would be an attempt to review the find
ing of the United states district, court.
The order OF the court will be TO
quash the writ, remand the defendants
for trial and surrender them to their
sureties."
Levi 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 bail" said
Attorney Mayer,
"under the law" said Attorney sheean.
! government counsel when writ OF
) habees corpus is denied Il Is specifically
} provided that the ResEondenr bS re-
manded9'
"Your honors order TO remand s void
said Mr. Mayer. I'VE shall find unless
care bo taken this question win be 80
snared that there can be no Adjudioa-
; ton"
Trial Must Besin Monday.
The decision means that after nine
years OF legal action the packers must
} so 10 trial next Monday. according to
the Interpretation of the government
counsel. Attorneys for the packers, how
ever. contend that their appeal to the
supreme court will act as a stay to pre-
vent Immediate trial In the district court.
1--WE win on every point The court
sustains our contentlon,' was the mes
sage sent by District attorney Wilkerson
to the attorney general at Washington.
In his decision Juoge Kohisaat ruled,
in part. as follows;
"rhe federal s;atutes give petitioners
the right 10 O writ os nebeas corpus un-
less It appears that h, IL rot entitled TO
II. The question Of rIeht 10 fiie petition
Iuay be tested 10 rwO ways. II may Mo
presented by Issue mado on motion for
leave TO file or 4 may 90 presented BY
motion to quash the arit ard dismiss the
petition"
After hearing arguments from the pack.
ers' attorneys, Judge Kohlsaat refused
! 10 interfere with the trial OF the packers,
} scheduled to begin Monday in the district
! court. The packers appealed TO the SUI
premo court of the United states.
After reheaTsing the arguments for and
} against and discussing the affidavits filed
the court ruled: ...,. Ia
"No serious issue OF fact was raised by
the affldavits 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.
''rhe court is further OF the opinion
that It has the power to cause the writ to
be issued.
J From q reading Of cases IN which the
I federal habeas corpus act has been before
tho supreme court IL becomes apparent
that as a rule the granting OF a writ In
cases in which the questions here in
volved have been presented has not been
q favored by that court. The rule seems TO
be clear that only certain cases where
, exceptional circumstances arise will the
court separate the question involved in
] the habeas corpus proceedings from the
I trial OF the case.
No Special Circumstances Cited.
4 at appears the petitioners rely on the
allegations as to the magnitude and