| Show MORE TIME IS GIVEN TO TUE THIP PACKERS United States Circuit Judge Kohlsaat Quashes Writs of Habeas Corpus But Allows Appeal to Supreme Court POSTPONES OPENING OF CRIMINAL TRIAL Formal Entry of Decision Is Delayed Until Wednesday to Permit Defendants to Go Be Before Before Before Be- Be fore Washington Tribunal GOVERNMENT FIGHTS STAY CHIO CHICAGO GO Nov Counsel lS Counsel for forthe forthe forthe the nine Chicago packers indicted indicted indicted in in- under the Sherman trust anti act succeeded late today in getting a further delay in the criminal trial which was scheduled to begin next Monday in the United States district court The delay until next Wednesday Wednesday was was granted by Judge C. C C. C Kohlsaat in the United States circuit circuit circuit cir cir- cir cir- court where earlier in tile the day the he defendants had been defeated in efforts to make effective a writ of habeas corpus An appeal to the United States supreme court was al allowed allowed allowed al- al lowed by Judge Kohlsaat in his decision de de- de- de After Arter deciding to qua quash h the writ of ot habeas corpus and after ordering the defendants ts remanded remanded on hn their sureties Judge Kohlsaat agreed to io delay formal formal for for- I mal entry a of his decision on and order until Wednesday da morning This it Is asserted will necessitate postponement postponement postponement postpone postpone- ment of or the tho opening of or the criminal trial of the tile p packers lon long enough ough to permit the tha Indicted men mon to get before beCore tl ti the United Stat supreme court cort be before before be- be fore tore the they automatically have accepted Jurisdiction In the district court b by appearing appearing ap ap- ap- ap at the trial ther there JAmes special special- counsel forthe for forthe forthe the government go made sharp objection to this delay while the point was beIng beIng boIng be- be Ing argued before Judge Kohlsaat this a afternoon tte mo on It rt has taken el eight ht years ears to get tet a plea of ot not guilty from rom the defendants defendants defendants defend defend- ants said Attorney and now six months after the not guilty guilt plea has been entered the tho trial has not been be begun un and these defendants have not faced a a. Jur jury I protest at any In further further fur fur- ther dela delay Judge In his decision Judge I Kohlsaat ruled In part oart as s follows The Tho federAl l statutes give I e petitioners petition petition- ers the rl right ht to a n writ o of habeas corpus corpus corpus cor cor- pus unless It Jt appears that thc they are arc not entitled to It It Tile The question of right to file tile a petition ma may be tested in two U wa ways says s 's It ma may be presented b by issue made on motion for tor leave to file tUe or It ma may be presented b by motion to quash the writ and dismiss the petition peti- peti tion After rehearsing the ar arguments for Cor forand or orand and Rg against aganet and discussing the affi affidavits davits ts flied filed the court rul ruled rule d No serious IR Issue ue of fact was raised b by the affidavits WIth reference to the lc legality of or the surrender of the petitioners h by their bailsmen the court Is of or the tho opinion that they were for tor the purpose of or this proceeding proceed proceed- In ing deprived of their liberty lIbert and en entItle entitled entitled en- en titled tItle to apply for the writ The court Is further of the opinion that it line has the power DOwer to cause lh the tho writ to be issued From a reading of cases In which the federal habeas corpus acl act has been before the supreme court It becomes apparent that as at a rule the thc Granting of a writ in cases caRes in which the question here Involved Involve have been I presented has han not been favored b by that court The Thc rule seems to be clear In certain cases where exI ex- ex that ill Elk only I n-laA n Ia will cu u wj w-wj v coUrt separate te the question involved ed In the habeas cOl corpus us proceedings from th the trial of ot the case I It appears tho the petitioners rely on the allegations as to the magnitude mt and volume of ot their business which would t l entail endless hardship am anti great reat 1 loss 68 should the supreme court cour hold the proceedings unconstitutional after the tile trial Is had S e it It can hardly bo be claimed that thep the tho of lo loss s growing out nut nf of the tile p frill trial would con constitute special circumstances circumstances circum circum- in the de- de stances a n as contemplated Cl lon ot of the court It follows that this thin court cour cannot take 5 Jurisdiction of or the haas habas ha- ha corpus proceedings s here un under er erthe l. l bas as as circumstances now presented ted U Moreover the tho It appears that the tho district court hn has bS full Cull of that mater matter matter mat- mat and ami hn has pR passed ed on Oil that on ter er to take the case se at this time and nd would practically amount to an nn at attempt attempt at- at tempt to review revie the decision of ot thaC that tha court C tho the to For Far Por these se Ten reasons on motion h and vacate the order granting granting quash I oua dismiss S the petition must the tho writ it ann an and t mus hot h. ranted |
