The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1913-09-17

Jerome was on his feet in an In
slant
Il desire 10 interpose objection to
any delay he said. II move that
this hearing proceed forthwith. and
that the writ be quashed.. Examina-
ton OF the return will show that the
Questions raised in the application are
frivolous and raise no new question
Of law or fact. There is no federal
issue involved and / feel constrained
20 say that this writ was obtained IN
der circumstances which approach
very near trifling with the court. |
have here the affidavit OF Lindsay
Dennis, based on statements made
by loquacious counsel for the other
side"
You need not use that term
/ loquacious. Mr.. Jerome. said the
, court severely.
i withdraw the remark" said
Jerome
u will say now" continued the
court. that unless YOU have a pretty
strong case 7 advise YOU to save the
trouble Of raising the issue OF bad
faith
Mr Jerome sat down.
Explains Action.
George Morris. OF Thaw's New
Hampshire lawyers. addressed the
court. He said in brief that the writ
in Thaws behalf had been obtained
Z because. under tho New HAMPSHIRE
{ statutes. there was no recourse 10 the
courts In case the governor honorsd
/ the extradition warrant and the New
York authorities cared 20 remove. the
| fugitive instantly.
We Will agree. said Jerome. ris
ing. that We will use no undue haste
In removing Thaw should his extradi.
ton be granted We are willing and
anxious 10 proceed In legal and emf
uently fair manner"
DO yoi wish 10 press this question
o. bad faith p" inquired the court
Mr.. Jerome paused moment then
said that In view OF tho assurances
from the other side he would let the
matter drop
Then said Judge Aldrich. the
only question 10 be- decided Is whether
This hearing shall go on or ba sus.
Tended With this he began reading
his rvscrpf In part 10 was a. FOL
lows
This proceeding DOES not express.
IY Involve the proposed eEtraditfon
hearing before the stafe executive
yet n concerns % Indirectly IN the
sense that n this hearing should 20
forward. and n II should b. deter.
mined here that the process under
which the petitioner Is held is nor a
r0nsututionally due process and that
The restraint is therefore Illegal b.
would doubtless be- commended that tho
result should boz accepted rs conclu
fiFe ~ the question 81 the riehf ~
"Ntfadition under the existing state
process
Rights Are Not Urgent
Tho rights ~ the State o. NeU
York are not ~ such urgerry ,s 10
Justify summary and precipifata sc
ii"n here IN sdyancr ~ tho usual and
proper course 20 interstate n1frsditlor
proceedings and the petitioner has.
inE invoked Federal protection FOR mo
purpose ~ saving his Federal rights.
Irids 20 fhr idea ~ a rosfpoueneuf
oi This hearing ~ tho end that oxtradi.
lion proceedings NAV ~ forward b..
Tore the State executive lu the ordin.
arv and usual way This BE- a Der.
frc'ly proper course Tor counsel 10
pursue % is ln perfect harmony with
'Ir system OF Federal md stare inter
relations
Ilo.fing rerdcncy arI control o.
fhis proceed rE under suspension men
ares neither fhc rIghts Of tho parties
concerned nor az th" stat" au'hurlfie.
such rorsid'raf'one make 30 uarf
! I'.' '.a' fIr hearing under fHe wit