Court Opinion

ID: 9417992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:46:07.309707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:53.844111
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Day, with whom were Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Peckham and Mr. Justice McKenna,
concurring.
Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Peckham, Mr. Justice McKenna and the writer agree in the conclusion just announced and in the main with the reasoning of the opinion. But we are unable to concur in the view that where the Commissioner maybe of opinion that the indictment charges no offense against the laws of the United States, and there is no other proof of probable cause before him, the order of arrest may be made,, remitting toThe court where the .indictment was found all questions of the sufficiency of the indictment. We agree that upon the hearing before the . Commissioner the indictment is prima facie to be taken as good, and that no technical objection should prevail against it; its ultimate sufficiency being matter for determination of the court wherein it was returned against the accused, subject to review in the appellate courts. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249. But the order of removal involves.judicial rather than mere ministerial action, and must be issued by the judge of the District when the case made warrants it. Sec. 1014, Rev. Stat.; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 83. And whether found in the indictment, or as the result of other testimony, the order to remove the accused can only be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. supra.
In this case the argument chiefly relied upon against the right to issue the order of arrest, and subsequently of removal, rested upon the alleged insufficiency of the indictment to charge any offense within the terms of the statute, because the *17reports which it was alleged the accused had been bribed to reveal were not then on file and might never be filed in the Department. It is said that the Commissioner was not required to determine for himself whether the statute applied to such reports, but such objections must be remitted for determination to the court in which the .indictment was found. In other words, the order of arrest and commitment may be made, although the Commissioner be of opinion that the indictment, in a particular vital to the prosecution of the offense, and which cannot be supplied by other proof, is fatally defective, and the accused is charged with no offense against the laws of the United States. In our opinion, the Commissioner, when the case is thus presented, must pass upon the sufficiency of the indictment. It is his duty to decide whether an offense is charged, with a view t.o making or withholding the order of. arrest, which when made,, becomes the basis of .an order of removal of a citizen to the place of trial, which may be many miles distant from his home. Such order is proper only in cases wherein probable cause has been shown to believe the accused guilty of an offense cognizable by the laws of the United States in the proceeding pending against him, and for which he is to answer at the place of indictment.