United States v. Green

• Decision Date: 13 March 1905
• Docket Number: 23,940,23,960.,23,961,23,927,23,928
• Citation: 136 F. 618
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GREEN (five cases).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

136 F. 618

UNITED STATES v. GREEN (five cases).

Nos. 23,927, 23,940, 23,928, 23,961, 23,960.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

March 13, 1905

Geo. B Curtiss, U.S. Dist. Atty., and M. D. Purdy, Asst. U.S. Atty gen.

John B Stanchfield, Frederick Collin, and Theodore R. Tuthill, for defendant.

On Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Petition for Warrants of Removal for trial.

The defendant, George E. Green, of Binghamton, N.Y., in the Northern District of New York, having been indicted by five several indictments presented by the grand jury of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a criminal term, and not being within such District of Columbia, was arrested at Binghamton, N.Y., in the Northern District of New York, by the United States marshal of said district, on warrants issued by Charles S. Hall, Esq., a United States commissioner in and for said district, issued pursuant to the provisions of section 1014 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716). That section reads as follows:

'Sec. 1014. For any crime or offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any commissioner of a circuit court to take bail, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, or any state where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense. Copies of the process shall be returned as speedily as may be into the clerk's office of such court, together with the recognizances of the witnesses for their appearance to testify in the case. And where any offender or witness is committed in any district other than that where the offense is to be tried, it shall be the duty of the judge of the district where such offender or witness is imprisoned, seasonably to issue, and of the marshall to execute, a warrant for his removal to the district where the trial is to be had.'

It will be noted that this section, enacted by Congress September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 91, c. 20), and amended August 22, 1842 (5 Stat. 516, c. 188 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716)), provides that an offender against the criminal law of the United States, whether indicted or not, is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or bailed as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of that offense, 'agreeably' (that is, in accordance with) 'to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state. ' This means, and the decisions are uniform, that the offender against the laws of the United States is to be arrested, imprisoned or bailed, and held for trial in the same manner and under the same procedure adopted and fixed by the laws of the state in which found for the arrest, bailing, examination, etc., of offenders against the laws of such state. In short, Congress has adopted, for these purposes, the laws of each state as to offenders found within its borders. The decisions of the state courts in interpreting such statutes will, of course, apply and usually govern.

The defendant, Green, having been taken before Commissioner Hall, demanded an examination, and, being represented by counsel, such examination was held on each indictment, or, more properly speaking on each complaint; each complaint being founded on a separate indictment. The result of these examinations was that on the 18th day of December, 1893, defendant, Green, was held on each charge or indictment, and required to give bail in the sum of $4,000 in each case for his appearance, etc., before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, then and there to stand trial and answer what might be required of him, and in default of such bail to stand committed to the custody of the marshal of the District pending an application to the district judge of said District for a warrant of removal, in each case, pursuant to section 1014 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716) above quoted. On the same day the defendant, George E. Green, in the custody of the marshal, was taken before the District Judge of the Northern District of New York, and the United States Attorney for said district applied then and there, pursuant to the section of the Revised Statutes above quoted, for warrants for the removal of said Green to the District of Columbia, where the trial of said Green under said indictments must be had.

The defendant, Green, by his counsel, opposed the granting of such warrants, and applied on petitions and papers in due form and alleging many substantial errors and defects in the proceedings, as well as the invalidity of each of the indictments and the absolute insufficiency of the evidence, including the indictments, to show the commission of a crime by the defendant, or probable cause to believe him guilty of the commission of any crime, for writs of habeas corpus to bring Green before the court for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of his arrest and detention by said marshal. He also applied for writs of certiorari to bring up the records in each case. These applications were not opposed, and such writs were duly issued, and the application for warrants of removal were held pending the determination of the court of such writs of habeas corpus. The defendant was admitted to bail in the sum of $20,000, pursuant to section 1015 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 718), requiring absolutely that bail shall be taken upon all arrests in criminal cases where the offense is not punishable by death.

The hearings on the returns to the writs were not completed until late in July, 1904, and the cases were finally submitted in September of that year.

RAY, District Judge (after stating the facts).

The questions arising on the voluminous indictments and records in these cases are important, not only to the government, but to the defendant, and having received consideration such as their importance would seem to demand. The defendant, Green, is held under five indictments as follows:

No. 23,927, dated July 17, 1903, charging that in the District of Columbia, about December 11, 1901, said Green bribed one George W. Beavers, an officer of the United States government, in violation of section 5451 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3680), in connection with 'Bundy Time Recorders,' an instrument for recording the time of government employes, and alleged to have been sold to the government through the joint action of Green and Beavers.

No. 23,940, dated October 1, 1903, charging that in the District of Columbia, on or about the 1st day of November, 1901, George W. Beavers, an officer of the United States government, and George E. Green, the defendant, unlawfully conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together, and with divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, knowingly to defraud the United States in the manner set forth in such indictment, in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676). The indictment charges that this conspiracy to defraud the government related to the Bundy time recorder.

No. 23,928, dated September 17, 1903, charging that in the District of Columbia, on or about the 1st day of November, 1901, the said Beavers and Green conspired to commit an offense against the United States of America, in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and in connection with the Bundy time recorder.

Reference is made to one count only in each of these indictments, as reference to the others is unnecessary.

No. 23,961, dated October 5, 1903, charging that in the District of Columbia, on or about the 6th day of October, 1900, the defendant, George E. Green, and George W. Beavers and Willard D. Doremus, unlawfully conspired, combined, confederated, and agreed together and with divers other persons knowingly to defraud the United States in the manner set forth in the said indictment, and which conspiracy related to the purchase of what is known as the 'Doremus Stamp Canceling Machine' for the government by said Beavers, through said Green and Doremus.

No. 23,960, dated October 5, 1903, charging that in the District of Columbia, on or about the 6th day of October, 1900, the defendant George E. Green, and George W. Beavers, an officer of the United States government, and one Willard D. Doremus, entered into an unlawful and corrupt agreement whereby said Green and Doremus undertook and promised, on behalf of the corporation represented by them, to pay to said Beavers, for his own personal use and benefit from time to time, and while said Beavers continued to be an officer of the United States government, $25 for each canceling machine sold the government, and that thereafter the said Green and Doremus did make payments to the said Beavers in pursuance of said agreement.

It will be noted that indictment No. 23,927 charges Green with the bribery of Beavers in connection with the Bundy time recorder, in violation of section 5451 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3680); that indictment No. 23,940 charges said Green with conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with said Bundy time recorders, in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676); while indictment No. 23,928 charges said Green with conspiracy to commit an offense against The united States in connection with said Bundy...