Show HAO AS CORPUS WRIT IS DENIED Supreme Court Decides Federation Federation Federation Feder Feder- Officials Have No Recourse PRECEDENT AS TO REFUGEE Demanding I Xo No KIsto KIs L to Question Acl CI or of f One QUO Delivering t rill I II I ha Ida Itla March 12 r 12 rhe he supreme ourt court today toda denied the tho motion for for n or a. a of habeas corpus made matle In behalf or tf if Mover Haywood Ha and antI c nr ed with the murder of oC ex cx Ju Judgment was Avas rendered remanding the prisoners prisoners' to the cu custody toh of oC tho the sheriff ansi an tho the warden al of or the state penitentiary The court in its decision has set get uj up what Is regarded by many a as a startling precedent In Jurisprudence jUlI nce upholding ln what practically amounts amount to a n seizure of persons charged with witha ltha a u crime cilmo in any state anti and convoying conveying them theta without a court hearing to tho the state state wherein said ald alleged l d crime was was wis t committed The courts court's decision In pmt part I is as ns follows I Fit s court is il of the opinion that where the prisoners prisoner are within the lIH Jurisdiction of oI o the demanding state slate an and ar are there applying to Its courts for relief th they cannot 1 raise the question ques lion tion as to whether 01 or not as ns a matter mattel of rf fact tIle the they are ire from justice wIthIn the meaning of oC the federal con- con and find tho act of oC congress 3 there there- U r. r 1 f dj d I J I I l ren tL I fr t tI 0 fitS rl J ti t i r l' l rat c fet Jor roi Invoking hooking the aid 0 ot 01 tit t Vl In such M cOI iS that he tto question n as to lo whether r pr or not a 3 citizen IH U a 1 refugee from Justice jU IH JB DUO that thai can cai only lIY be lu to him himo o IJ long a at as h ht iR th jui julI ti T Ti If 4 i f the tae state ta l l laws he Is Isal al alleged t to have trun transgressed QUN Ion of Guilt Not I 11 t 11 1 It Il Is I a re remedy which tines doe not nut in involve in- in volve hc the thC Inquiry as to tn whether or 01 not the Iho accused ll Is in fact guilty guilt ot or or In Innocent Innocent In- In noc nt of the olTen offence e charged 1 It lt Is a remedy that merely mert ly goes oes to tn the question ques ques- Ues- Ues lion tion of or his removal al of or the jurisdiction If lC these views le be correct and we believe b behove be be- lieve hove the they are ore it follows that thai so soon an as the prisoner la is I within the Jurisdiction jurl jurisdiction lc- lc tion lion of 01 the demanding state slate both oth tIle the reason antI and object o for Cor Invoking this principle have ct ceased t and nd can no longer have any application It Il It has been een held that thai It ll ceases to tobe tobe be bc a federal question as soon as the prisoner Invokes a courts court's aid within the state stat from which he Is alleged d to have red entered It must necessarily follow follow follow fol fol- fol- fol low that the courts of oC the state demanding de tie- manding mantling th the prisoner have ha no jurisdiction tion to Inquire Into the th- nets acts of the executive of or the state stale delivering the I prisoner r. r |