Theodore Price v. William Henkel

• Decision Date: 21 February 1910
• Docket Number: No. 385,385
• Citation: 30 S.Ct. 257,54 L.Ed. 581,216 U.S. 488
• Parties: THEODORE H. PRICE, Appt., v. WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

216 U.S. 488

30 S.Ct. 257

54 L.Ed. 581

THEODORE H. PRICE, Appt.,

v WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, et al.

No. 385.

Argued January 7, 1910.

Decided February 21, 1910.

Messrs. De Lancey Nicoll, John D. Lindsay, Howard S. Gans, and Thomas Staples Fuller for appellant.

Assistant Attorney General Fowler and Mr. Jesse C. Adkins for appellees.

Mr. Justice Lurton, delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant, Theodore H. Price, was, on March 1, 1909 committed by a United States commissioner for the southern district of New York to the custody of the appellee, as marshal for that district, to await an order of removal to the District of Columbia, for trial upon two indictments, numbered respectively 26,088 and 26,089, being two of the indictments considered in the case of Haas v. Henkel, just disposed of [216 U. S. 462, 54 L. ed. ——, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249]. Price thereupon filed his petition in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, alleging that his imprisonment was unlawful and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and praying for a writ of habeas corpus and certiorari, and that he might be discharged from such arrest. Upon a hearing, his petition was dismissed and he was remanded to the custody of the marshal. From this order he has prayed this appeal.

This appeal and that of Haas were argued together, the difference between the two being slight. The two New York indictments against Price which he had been held to answer when these removal proceedings were begun were numbered 307 and 308. The first charged him with having entered into a conspiracy with Moses Haas, Edwin S. Holmes, Jr., and other persons unknown, to defraud the United States, and the other charged him with having conspired with Haas to bribe Holmes, an official in the Statistical Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, to violate his duty. These indictments allege the conspiracy to have been formed in the southern district of New York. They are in all respects similar to the two District of Columbia indictments against the same persons, which lay the locus of the conspiracy in the District of Columbia, except that certain counts in the latter indictments charge particular offenses not charged in either of the New York indictments.

It is now insisted that the order of the commissioner, committing appellant to the custody of the marshal to wait a removal, is void:

1. Because § 1014, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716), does not authorize a removal from the district where an accused is found when he is there under bail to answer local indictments for the same offense.

2. That the commitment to await an order of removal was illegal and an abuse of power, because the District of Columbia indictments did not substantially charge any offense against the United States.

3. That the record certified by the commissioner under the certiorari issued by the circuit court does not show any evidence justifying a conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that the appellant had committed any crime in the District of Columbia.

As two of the counts included in one of the District of Columbia indictments are for particular offenses, similar in character, but not identical with those covered by either of the two New York indictments, it is apparent that appellant has not been held in New York to answer all of the offenses which he is charged with having committed in the District of Columbia, and could not be brought to trial under the New York indictments for the offenses charged by the fifth and seventh counts of one of the District of Columbia indictments. This alone serves to take the case out of the precise situation presented by the first objection against the order made by the commissioner. If there is one good count under which a trial might be had in the district to which the removal is sought, it is enough to support an order in a habeas corpus proceeding. Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 207, 214, 36 L. ed. 126, 130, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407.

But for the reasons already stated in the opinion in the Haas Case, just handed down, we are of opinion that absolute identity in the two sets of indictments does not operate to defeat a removal, if the government elect to try in another district, and that the only function of a commissioner before whom a removal complaint is made in such a situation is to be satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of an offense charged to have been committed in the district to which the removal is sought. This case, upon this point, as well as upon the point that the two indictments here involved do not sufficiently charge an offense against the United States, is governed by the opinion and judgment in the Haas Case.

This brings us to the only question which is not necessarily concluded by the opinion in the Haas Case; namely, whether there was any substantial evidence before the commissioner upon which he might, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, decide that there was probable cause for believing that appellant had committed, within the District of Columbia, the offenses charged in the indictments against him found in that district.

That at least a prima facie case for the removal was made by the introduction of the indictments returned against him in the District of Columbia is not disputable. That much efficacy is attributed to a certified copy of an indictment found in a competent court of another district, when put in evidence in a removal proceeding. Bryant v. United States, 167 U. S. 104, 42 L. ed. 94, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 744; Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 46 L. ed. 177, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 50 L. ed. 90, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 48 L. ed. 882, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 605. But the evidence of probable cause afforded by the indictment is not conclusive. For this reason it has been held that the refusal of a commissioner to hear evidence offered for the purpose of showing that no offense had been committed, triable in the district...