The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-09-19
EXPLANATION ASKED
BY CANADIAN COURT

MONTREAL Sept. S,-Representa-
tlves OF the Dominion immigration de-
partment responsible for the sudden
move by which Canada got rid Of Harry
X. Thaw, appeared before the appeal
court today to explain why they had dis
obeyed the courts order to produce the
Matteawan fugitive here last Monday.
The hearing resolved Into an examination
OF the constitutionality OF the immigra-
tion act under which c. J Doherty, min
lster of justice. acted when he ordered
Thaw's summary deportation
Attorney NJ. K La Flamme. represent
Ing the Thaw family. questioned the right
Of the Canadian parlta ment to pass law
suspending a fundamental feature Of
British legal legislation. namely. the right
Of anyone to use the habeas corpus writ
Reasons Presented.
L. T. Marechal. for the immigration
department, contended that Thaw had
not been produced for the following rea-
sons:
THAT the original writ had not been
served on tho tmmigra ton authorities
connected with the case. but only copies,
which was irregular: that each writ
served should have borne the. original
signature of the judges issuing them and
the man who served them: that. being a
criminal matter. Judge GeTyals I LIS a9d ;r3t
to issue the writ, which should have
! come up before a Judge Of the district
In which the prisoner was held that, be-
ing a criminal matter. no civil tribunal
had Jurisdiction that the immigration
department under the act, had the su-
preme powers in such q matter and that
its decision could not be reviewed or
ouashed by any court, unless the party
affected was a Canadian or Canadian
domicled.''
Judge Arehambault president of the
court. asked Il II was contended by the
immigration department that tho legal
procedure connected with the writ of ha-
beas corpus could be put aside by legis-
| lation.
Mr., Marechal said 1t could In an in
| stance Ike that OF Thaw. who was not a
Canadian or domiciled in Canada
Mr. Marechal thought the Canadian
parlia ment was supreme IN criminal mat
ters.
Judge Gervais, member Of the court,
| expressed the opinion that the British
| colonies had the Tigt only to pass laws
which were not repugnant TO the funda-
mental principles of British law. ono OF
| which was the right Of any man TO The
protection Of the writ of habeas corpus
Questions to BE Decided.
This argument might be merely con-
sidered as a preliminary sklrmtsh. An
other stage will be reached on Septem.,
Der %. when the court probably WI VIII
! hand down its opinion on a series OF lni-
tial objections filed on behalf OF the i'm
| migration authorities.
In brief. the situation as the proceed
ing closed late today was:
The immigration authorities and the
Thaw counsel enter divergent views as
TO merits of applying for the writ. The
Immigration authorities contend that
Thaw applied for the writ In the WRONG
way went TO the wrong court for IL. mad
II drawn UP in the wrong way and served
In the wrong way. Before Thaw could
apply for such a writ before the. court
Of Kings bench. it was contended ne
would have 10 make affidavit that there
was no fudge available I'm the district oil
ST. Francis. where he was detained, He
should have had II signed by the judge
who issued Il. not by court oftlciei ano ,l
have seen to Il that the original and not
la copy or the writ was served on the
person or persons against whom suSi
writ was addressed.