The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1915-03-27
DOUBT RIGHT
TO HOLD THAW
New York May Return the
Murderer to New
Hampshire
HONOR OF STATE
is CHIEF POINT
Two Justices Not Sure State
Had Right to the
Prisoner


the appeal of Harry X. Thaw from the
decision OF Supreme Court Justice Page,
refusing to order his return to New
Hampshire after acquittal here on
charge of conspiracy, began in the appel
late division yesterday.
Thaw's counsel contended that as New
Hampshire permitted 1haw to return to
New York after his escape from the
Matteawan asylum only on the indict,
ment charging him with conspiracy, he
must now be returned to the state
Whence he was extradited.
The state holds that, as Thaw is now
within the jurisdiction OF New York
state. he is amenable to the commit
ment under which he was first sent to
Matteawan.
When the hearing began, John b..
Stanchfield and former Judge Morgan J.
O'Brien were on hand to represent Thaw,
while Deputy Attorney Generals Frank
lin Remedy and Frank X. Cook appeared
for the state.
A lengthy brief had been prepared by
the state and was submitted by Mr.. Ken
nedy. The first point made in it was
that in interstate rendition an extra
dited person, once within the jurisdiction
of the demanding state, is subject both
to its criminal and civil process. Many
cases were quoted TO cover this point.
The second point, briefly touched on,
was that the principle laid down in the
case of Lacelles against Gergia is applica-
Bile to Thaw's commitment TO Mattea-
wan, and the authorities of Matteawan,
therefore, have the right, Immediately
upon his acquittal, to take him into GUS
tody under such commitment.
In behalf OF Thaw, his attorneys con-
tended that the lower court should be
reversed, az it was improper and unlaw-
full for the state, after Thaws aequittal
OF the criminal charge, to make use OF
his presence to confne him in Mattea-
wan. After Thaw left New York state,
they claimed, there was no way by which
the state could cause his return except
By charging him with crime, and il has
been shown that his escape from Mattea-
wan was not a crime.
The real object and desire Of the state
officials at all times since Thaw left Mat
teawan, it was argued, was to reeommt
him to Alatteawan.
Two justices OF the appellate division
agreed that there was a doubt in their
minds whether the state of New York
would be within its rights in bouncing
upon Harry Kendall Thaw, after his ae-
auittal here on the charge of conspiracy
on which be was extradted from New
Hampshire and returning him TO the
state hospital for the insane at Mattea-
wan.
They we're Justice lngraham, presid-
ing, and Justice Scott. To voice their
views, they interrupted hennedy's argu-
ment.
Mr.. Kennedy referred to the various
decisions finding Thaw insane. Ne was
interrupted by Justice Hotchkiss, who
impatiently remarked;
"Nhat has that got 10 do with this
easel That is merely a question OF
fact
Mr.. Kennedy explained that he sought
TO establish the fact that Thaw had
never been given his legal freedom from
Matteawan. At that point be was inter
rupted by Justice lngraham, who said
Il am in doubt A. to the right Of the
state Of New York 20 pounce upon Ihaw,
following his acquittal Of crime, and
then return him 10 the state hospital
for the criminal insane al Matteawan. ]
believe most citizens Of this state would
regard such action as dishonorable.
"The question involved in this case ii
whether the state Of New York can with
honor hold Thaw on the commitment
signed subsequent 20 his second trial.
after ho was cxtraditcd from New Hamp-
shire for a specific crime and found not
guilty.. when the commitment ordered
lie return 20 Matteawan on a charge
that i not cXtraditable."
Justice Scott agreed with Justice In
graham. and informed Mr.. Kennedy that
the question AZ issue was not - much
the return Of Thaw 60 Matteawan -
maintaining the honor Of the state Of
New York
The question Of the honor and good
faith 81 the state Il not involved, Mr..
Kennedy eonteadsa. "The state tried
Thaw IN good faith for the odeuse for
which he vas eztraditod. There b. no
state or federal statute vhich protects
aim from she original commitment.
Iusticr luCraham remarked that there
uas re- question II the legality of the
commitment and that the only question
81 issue vac vbether the STATE had .
rett a. resuru Taas &C. MatteawaH 18th
~ fFsf permitting lin safe psssaEe -
Neu HampshIre
rrssr the saurlusi0h 81 the arguments.
ana va-e flrfff frelsian uas reserved.
IL wes CONSIDERED probable - attaTuers
z--u.ytsF u-fh tllf nass that ths Decision
,-..ff i. hsu7ra f1Fa furfna the nert