The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-12-21
HARRY TflAVV MUST RETURN TO ASYLLJMa
By ORDER or FEDERAL SUPREME COURT
Whose DecisioninHis Case RE-
verses the Refusal of New
Hampshire Court.
THE COURT IS UNANIMOUS
Contention is OyerruIed That II
is sMota Crime orInrnate Of
Asylum to Walk Out.

Asylum to Walk Out.
WASHINGTON. Dec. II The Sd.
preme court toeay reversed the res
fusal Of the federal court In New
Hampshire to extradite Harry X.
Thaw to New York. The effect Of to.
days decision is 10 cacuse the extra
days decision Is to cause the extra
to New York at once.
On August 4 (. 1913, Thaw escaped
from Matteawaf insane asylum Id
New York. where he had been con-
fined after two trials for the murder
OF Stanford White. Charged with
conspiracy to escape he was finally
arrested In New Hampshire. He wds
indicted in New York on that charge
and application for his extradition
was made to New Hampshire. Ex
tradition was ordered by the govern
or Of New Hampshire but on habeas
corpus proceedings In the federal
district court Judge Aldrich held
Thaw should be released. y;
Justice Holmes announced the
courts unanimous. decision today.
He first overruled the contention
that II was not a crime for "a man
confined in an insane asylum to walk
out II he could and that tfierefore Il
conspiracy to do so was not crime.
We do not regard II as opHn to
debate that the Withdrawal by CON
nivatice of man from an insane asy-.
lum to which he has been committed
as Thaw was did tend to obstruct the
due administration Of the law.
least the New York courts may de-
eide. Therefore, the Indictment
charges a crime. II there is any re 9
mote defect In the earlier proceedi dines
by which Thaw was committed. !. which.
we are far from intimating, this ii
not the time and place for that cues. :.
ton to be tried. y = ~ 7,
Justice Holmes said that the tiiosf
serious argument for Thaw. 1as thar
II he were insane when he c0htrived
his escape he could not be guilty 81
crime, while, II he were not insan
he was entitled to be discharged and;
that his confinement and other facts.
in the records required the supref1e|
court to assume that he was insane
But this is not Thaw's triHl.fs
commented the Justice upon the line:
OF argument.
The extradition proceed dingB even
when as here humane opportunftY
is afforded to test them upon habeas
corpus the purpose Of the writ Is not
to substitute the judgment of an6t ther;
tribunal upon the facts or the Inv OF
the matter to be tried. The consti1
tuition says nothing about fieabeas
corpus In this connection but pre-
emptorily requires that upon proper
demand the person charged shall be
delivered up to be removed to the
state giving Jurisdiction Of the crime
There is no discretion allowed, no
inquiry into motives. t,sS
The technical sufiiciency OF the,
Indictment is not open. And even
1t 1t be true thet the arguments
stated offers nice question 1t Is u
question as to the law of New York
which the New York courts must
decide. The statute that declares an
act done by a lunatIc NOT criFapI
adds that a person Is not excused
from criminal liability except upon
proof that at the time he was labor
ing under such defect OF reason az
No. mot to know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing
No. 2-not to know that the act was
wrong. 3
THE inmates OF lunatic asyIuns
are largely governed, 1t has been re-
marked, by appeals to the same mo-
tives that govern other men and IT,
well might be that man, who was
insane and dangerous, nevertheless Ia
many, directions understood the ma
ture and quality of his acts as we'll
and was as open to be affected by the7
of the criminal law as any
body else. How far such considera
tions shall be taken into account It IS
for the New York courts to decide as
It Is for anew York jury to determine
at the moment OF the con-
spiracy Thaw was insane in such
sense as they may be instructed would
make the fact defense.
When az here the identity OF thes
person, the fact that. he is a fugitfve
from justice, the demand in due form.
the Indictment by a grand jury for
what the governor alleges to be 3
crime in that state and the reasonable
that 1t may be such all aps
pear the constitutionally required 2
is not to be interfered with
by the summary process of habeas
corpus upon speculation as to what
ought to be the result OF a trial IA
he place whore the constitution pro-
vides for Its, taking place. We re-
gard It as too clear for lengthy dif-
,ussicn that Thaw should be deliver
I'd up at once