Evening star., 1914-12-21
Unanimous Opinion Holds SIay-
er of Stanford White Must
Return to New York.
STILL HAS THIRTY DAYS
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Makes No Comment on Decision
When Told He Must Go Back to
Matteawan Asylum.


state of New York
In brief decision by Justice Holmes.
which was the unanimous decision OF
the court it was held that the cele-
brated prisoner should be turned over
at once to the New York authorities to
answer an indictment charging con-
spiracy 10 escape from Matteawan Asy-
lum for the Criminal Insane.
Whether his escape from the asylum.
while, as his counsel contended, he was
insane. constituted a crime, and other
questions, the court dismissed with the
comment that they could not enter into
a habeas corpus 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 Supreme Court. Merely the
question of returning Thaw on the con-
spiracy indictment was up for de-
cision.
What other moves, if any, were open
to Thaw's counsel to prevent his return
to the state where he was twice tried
and had made many futile efforts to be
released, those familiar with the legal
procedure were at a loss to forecast.
must NOW be SeLuTueQ.
To those who have followed the case
It seemed that the fight against re-
turning to New York was lost, and
that nothing remained but for the
sheriff of Coos county, n. H., to turn
Thaw over to New York officers upon
the extradition granted by the Gov
ernor of New Hampshire, but stayed
by the decision OF Justice Aldrich,
which was today reversed.
Thaw will remain in New Hampshire
for thirty days unless his attorneys
consent to his removal sooner. This
results from the fact that the mandate
of the court carrying out Its decision
is not issued until thirty days after de-
cision, unless the attorneys for ooth
sides join in requesting an earlier is
suing Of the order.
August II, 1913. Thaw escaped from
the Matteawan Insane Hospital, New
York, where he had cen confined
after two trials for the murder of
Stanford White. Charged with con-
spiracy to escape, he was nnaIly ar
rested in New Hampshire. He was in
dicted in New York on that charge
and applica ton for his extradition was
made TO New Hampshire. Extraditfon
was ordered by the Governor Of New
Hampshire, but on habeas corpus pro-
ceedings in the federal district court
Judge Aldrich held that Thaw should
be released.
Court Unanimous in Decision.
Justice Holmes announced the courts
luminous decision today. He first
oyerruled the contention that II was
not a crime for man confined in an
insane asylum to walk out If he could,
and that, therefore, conspiracy to do
so was not a. crime.
I'VE do not regard ii as open to de-
bate, that the withdrawal, by con-
nivance, of a man from an insane asy-
Ium, to which he had been committed,
a Thaw was. did tend to obstr:- the
due administration of the law. At least,
the New York courts may so decide.
Therefore. the Indictment charges a
crime II there is any remote defect
In the earlier proceedings by which
rhaw was committed. which we are
far from iDtirndting, this is not the
time and place for that question to be
tried
Justice Holmes said the most serious
argument for Thaw was that If he was
ingane when he contrived his escape, he
corld not be guilty of crime; while, IT
nc were not insane he was entitled 10
he Discharged, and that his confinement
and other facts in the record required
the Supreme Court to assume that he
was insane.
MOI 1ndW
But this is not Thaw's trial. COM
r,cnted the justice upon that line of
argument.
-In extradition proceedings, even
when as here, 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
peremptoriiy requires that, upon prop
cr demand. the person charged shall
he delivered up to be removed to the
state having jurisdiction of the crime.
There is no discretion allowed, no in
quirY into motives
"The technical sufficiency OF the in
6ictment is not open. And, even IL 1t
be true that the argument stated Of
fers a nice question. II is question as
to the law of New York which the New
York courts must decide.
The statute that declares an act done
bv a luuatic not u crime. adds that a
! person is not excused from criminal
liability, except upon proof that at
the time he was laboring under such
nature and quality of the act he was
doing: or. 2, not TO know the act was
wrong.
May Understand His Acts.
The inmates of lunatic asyiums are
largely governed, it has been remarked
by appeal to the same motives that
govern other men. and IL well might be
that "A man who was insane and dan
i,erous. nevertheless, In many direc-
fions understood the nature and Quail
ity Of his acts as well. and was as omen
10 be affected by the motives of the
criminal law as anybody else
How far such consideration shall he
taken into account il is for the New
York courts to decide, as it is for a
New YorkNjury to determine whether
at the moment of the conspiracy Thaw
was insane In such sense as they NAV
be instructed would make the fact a
defense.
When, as here, the identity of tn.
persop, the fact that he is a fugitive
from justice, the demand in due form
the indictment by grand jury for
what the Governor of New York ailege,
70 be a crime in that state and the rea-
souable possibility that IL may be such
all appear. the constitutionally re-
nuired surrender is not to be ipterfcrcd
with by the summary process of habea u.
corpus upon speculation as to wha
ought to be the result of trial in the