New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-17
THAW ORDERED
TO MATTEAWAN;
APPEAL DENIED
Habeas Corpus Writ Last
Hope After Appellate
Division Decision.
COURT REGRETS HE
WAS BROUGHT BACK
Sees No Reason for Return Of
Troublesome Guest to
New Hampshire.


The Appellate Division yesterday up
held the decision Of Justice Page, Of
the Supreme Court, recommitting
Harry X. Thaw to Matteawan under
the original commitment issued by JUS
tice Bowling. The decision of Justice
Page was given after Thaw had been
freed Of the charge of conspiracy in
escaping from the Matteawan institu
tion, for trial Of which he was brought
back to New York from New Hamp-
shire.
Only one strand now remains Of the
legal web woven about Thaw to keep him
out of the asylum, this being the writ
Of habeas corpus, the purpose of which
is to obtain a jury trial as to his
sanity. This writ is returnable for
argument before Justice Hendrick, in
the Surpeme Court, on Monday next.
The order of the Appellate Division is
not to be put into effect until Wednes-
day, and Thaw will remain in the
Tombs until that time.
Whether the writ Of habeas corpus
will act as a stay after Wednesday re-
mains to be seen. Also, while there is
no doubt that there will be an appeal
from the decision Of the Appellate Di
vision, first to the Court of Appeals
and then probably to the United States
Supreme. Court, on a constitutional
question, it is not certain that Thaw
will be permitted to remain in the
Tombs pending these proceedings.
The action Of the Appellate Division
yesterday was a surprise to many who
had followed the questions asked by
Presiding Justice Ingraham and some
Of his associates when the case was
argued These questions seemed to in
dicate that some members OF the
tribunal held the view that this state
was under obligations TO New Hamp-
shire to return Thaw, because he was
extradited specifically for trial on the
charge of conspiracy. on which he was
acquitted.
Ju@sicc Scott, Nto wrote e0ncurring
opinion, said: at may be that the state
would be we'll rid of so troublesome a
guest, and that in view of his acquittal
II is to be regretted that having left
IT, he was brought back"
After citing numerous authorities on
cases IN courts of other states, Justice
Hotchkiss, who wrote the principal
opinion, said: THE present attempt to
assail the good faith Of the eXtradition
proceedings as a means for attacking
the commitment cannot succeed. Inc
facts set forth in the petition in this
regard consist entirely of statements
alleged to have been made oy two at
torneys who represented the state in
proceedings before the immigration De-
partment of the Dominion Of Canada
at hearing on an application TO that
government for the deportation OF
Thaw in September. 1913, before Thaw
entered the State of New Hampshire,
before his indictment for the crime
upon which he was subsequently extra
dited from that state.
"Then, these proceedings failed, or
were abandoned as means of retak-
ing Thaw, and when he had thereafter
teen lawfully indicted and upon that
been taken and accomplished, and Thaw
had been tried upon such indictment, |
see no justification for questioning the
good faith of these proceedings (as-
suming they were the subject OF in
ouiry), because of what some repre-
sentative of the state may have said
under the circumstances disclosed. But
| do not think that any question of
good faith in securing the eXtraditlon
of Thaw is in any way material or
may enter into our consideration"
Judge Hotchkiss added: 81 do not
think the rule Of abuse of judicial
process has any application TO this
case"
Justice Scott said: "The appellant
is in this state, and there is outstand-
ing a perfectly valid order for his re-
straint as a person of unsound mind.
How he came here is none Of our con-
Germ. Even il he had been Kidnapped
and brought back in defiance OF law
he would have no standing to insist
that he be returned 70 the place from
which he came.
But il is urged that in some vague
and underlined way it would be a
breach of good faith on the part Of
the State of New York TO retain him
under the commitment 70 Matteawan
when he was brought back to the state
for the purpose of being tried for a
crime. Good faith TO whom? Not TO
the appellant, because he came back
involuntarily, and was subject to no
promise or inducement. Not 10 the
State Of New Hampshire, because it
was the duty Of that state to return
him to answer for the crime for which
he had been indicted.
"All that We have to consider is his
right TO be discharged from the law
full outstanding commitment to Mat
teawan, and il seems clear to me that
he has no such right. Certainly, il we
were TO release him from the restrain
ing effect Of the commitment we have
no power to compel his deportation,
but must release him uncondtionally,
leaving it TO him to determine whether
he will 60 or stay