Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1913-11-08
TRAW LOSES IN
HIS fight FOR
LIBERTY
GOVERNOR FELKER OF new HaMP-
SHIRE HAS GRANTED new YORK
STATES REQuISiTION FOR The
FUGITIVE AT The DELAYED HEAR.
ING TO-DAY.
FEDERAL COURT IS
next BATTLEFIELD

I Concord, n. H., Nov. S.-Goyernor
/ Felker today honored the requisition
OF the state OF New York for the ex-
tradition of Harry X. Thaw. The case
is now transferred automatically to
the federal courts where a writ OF
habeas corpus on behalf OF Thaw is
pending,
The governor based his decision on
the Indictment returned against Thaw
in New York county, which charged
him with conspiracy to escape from
the insane asylum at Matteawan, New
! York, to which he was committed aft
er his second trial for the killing of
Stanford White. Thaw made his
sensational flight on August II and a
| few days later was arrested near
Coaticook, Canada.
Thaws' attorneys announced they
would Immediately file an amendment
to their petition for writ of habeas
corpus, application for which was
made soon after Thaw was arrested
in this state after his deportation
from Canada. The original petition
was based on the allegation that Thaw
was indicted for conspiracy by the
Duchess county grand jury and it
was suspended pending the governors
decision on the question of extradi.
ton
Because the eXtradition has now
been granted on the strength of the
New York county indictment, it will
be necessary TO amend the petition
accordingly.
In granting the extradition Governor
Felker said in part.
by the petition of Governor Glynn
and the accompanying papers. it ap-
pears that the grand jury of the
county of New York has duly return
ed into open court an indictment
against MI, TbaW That, is sufficient,
to warrant the arrest, arraignment
and trial of the respondent, if he may
be found within the state wherein the
Indictment is pending. 1t is further
more sufficient to establish that Mr..
Thaw is-if found in any state or
country which such indictment is
pending-a fugitive from justice.
THE provisions of the federal con-
stitution and the acts of congress en-
acted to give force and effect there to
as construed by the court Of last re.
sort on such matters, limit me to the
consideration Of the questions: %
Whether the person demanded has
been substantially charged with a
crime, and (2): Whether he is fugi-
tive from justice Such was the decis-
ion of the supreme court of the Unit
ed States in the most recent case
wherein a sister state demanded of
New Hampshire the interstate rendi-
tion of a person within her border
Muncy VS.. Clough, 1856 U. s. 372, de-
cided in 1909. In that case it was
decided by unanimous court that the
in matters of this kind
before the governor are summary in
their nature. The person demanded
has no constitutional right to be heard
before the governor on either question
and the statute provides for none. To
hold otherwise would. in many cases,
render the constitutional provision,
as well as the statute passed to
carry it out, wholly useless.
81 have nevertheless, owing to the
urgency of the demands of his coun-
sel-men in whose integrity I have
confidence and for whose opinions |
deep respect-given Mr..
Thaw the fullest possible opportunity
for the expression of their views.
With profound respect, therefore, l
am unable to view my duty in the
premises as including an investigation
Of Mr. Thaw's mental condition, or of
the counsel for the state of New York
Dr. of the probable guilt or innocence
Of the accused