Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1914-12-22
Loses Fight in U. S. Supreme
Court Against Being Extradited
From New Hampshire.
DECISION IS UNANIMOUS
Apparently Nothing Remains But
: Delivery of Noted Prisoner to
Empire State Officers.

dictment for conspirinE to escape from
Matteawan Asylum.
whether his escape. while, az coun-
sci contcndcd he was insane. consti-
tutcd crime, and other questions. the
court dismissed with the comment that
theE could not enter into Il hebcas cor
puS proceeding. and that they were
proper questions for the State of New
/ York to decide
Actually, the celebrated Thaw case
the killing of stanford White-was not
before the court. Merely the question
OF returning him on the conspiracy
question was up for decision
What other moves If any. were open
to Thaw's counsel to prevent his return
TO the state where he was twice tried
be released, those familiar with the
legal procedure were at a loss to fore
cast.
FIGHT AGAINST RETURNING
APPARENTLY Is LOST
To those who have followed the ca se
1t seemed that the fight against re-
turning TO New York was lost, and that
nothing remained but for the sheriff
of Coos County. y. H.. TO turn Thaw.
over 10 New York officers. upon the
e%tradition which was granted by the
Governor Of New Hampshire. but
stayed by the decision of Justice AL
drich. which was to-day reversed.
Legal authorities who have followed
the case pointed out to-day :hat New
York. with it's custody of Thaw secure.
might now direct his immediate trial
for conspiracy or might annul the
indictment and return the prisoner to
Matteawan, or II might return him
TO the asylum in disregard of the in
dictmcnt.
During the argument OF the case
before the Supreme Court, Chief Jus
tice White intimated that immediate
| n r Of =,
after his return might give rise to
another habeas corpus proceeding to
determine whetehr n Federal right had
been denied by placing him in an
asylum after extraditing him for. con-
spiraeyeefa
-1n-zStmny remain In New Hamp.
shire for thirty days unless his attor-
neys consent to his removal sooner
The mandate Of the court Is not issued
until thirty days after decision unless
attorneys for both sides join in a re-
quest for an earlier order
ESCAPES FROM MATTEAwAN
ON AUGUST II. 1913
On August Il, 1913. Thaw escaped
from the Matteawan Insane Hospital
Charged with n conspiracy to escape
he was arrested In New HAMPSHIRE
He was indicted In New York on tina,
charge, and application for his eXtradi-
tion was made to New Hampshire
ernor OF New Hampshire, but on habeas
corpus proceedings in the Federal Dis
trict Court, Judge Aldrich held Thaw
should be released.
Justice Holmes announced the courts
unanimous decision to-day. He first
oVerruled the contention that Ii was
not crime for a man confined in an
insane asylum To walk out If he could
and that, therefore. conspiracy to
do 50 was not n crime.
we do not regard it as open 10
debate, that the withdrawal by con-
nivance, OF a man from an insane
asylum, 20 which he had been com
m!tted. as Thaw was, did tend to OBJ
struct the due administration of the
law. AT least, the New York courts
may so decide. Therefore. the indict-
ment charges n crime. If there Is any
remote defect in the earlier proceedings
by which Thaw was committtd. which
we are far from intimating this Is
not the time and place for that ques-
tion to be tried"
Justice Holmes said the most 3erious
argument for Thnw was that If he
was insane when he contrived his es.
cape. he could not be guilty of crime;
while. II he were not insane. he was
entitled to be discharged. and that his
confinement and other facts in the
record required the Supreme Court to
assume that he was insane
But this is not Thaw's trial" com
mentcd the justice upon that line OF
argument.
I'm extradltion proceedings. even
when. as here. n humane opportunity
is afforded to test them upon habeas
corpus. the purpose of the writ is not
to substitute the Judgment of another
tribunal upon the facts or the law OF
the matter to be tried.
"The Constitution says nothing about
habeas corpus in this connection, but
peremptorily requires that upon proper
demand the person charged shall be
delivered UP to be removed to the State
having Jurisdiction in the crime. There
Is no discretion allowed, no inquiry
into motives
TECHNICAL SUFFICIENCY
OF INDICTMENT NOT OPEN
THE technical sufficiency of the In
dictment is not open. And, even IL II
he true that the argument stated Of
fcrs nice question. 1t is Il question
as to the law of New York which the
New York courts must decide
The statute that declares an act
done by lunatic not crime, adds
that person is not excused from
criminal liability except upon proof
that at the time he was laborinG under
such defect of reason as: l. Not to
know the nature and quality Of the
act he was doing; or, Q. Not to know
that the act was wrong
The inmates Of lunatic asylums are
largely governed. 1t has been remark ed,
by appeal to the same motives that
govern other men. and il well might
be that man who was Insane and
dangerous nevertheless, In many dircc-
tions understood the nature and quality
OF his acts as we'll. and was as omen
to be affected by the motives Of the
criminal law as anybody else.
How far such consideration shall
be taken into account. 1t is for the New
York courts to decide. rs 1T is for n
New York jury TO determine whether.
at the moment OF the conspiracy, Thaw
was insane In such sense as they may