requiring the intervention of the Grievance Committee are submitted, and among the matters which we are requested to bring to the attention of the Association is the recent action of a Federal Judge in the State of New Hampshire with regard to the case of Harry K. Thaw. The facts regarding the homicide for which he was indicted, the methods by which he escaped conviction, the circumstances attending his flight from Matteawan, his arrest and expulsion from Canada and his arrest in the State of New Hampshire doubtless are well known to all members of the Association, and do not require extended mention here. The action of the Federal Judge in the State of New Hampshire which indicates a disposition to release Thaw upon bail has impressed many of the members of this Association as being in disregard of the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States. Section I provides that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state, and section 2 provides that a person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authorities of the state from which he fled be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. This action of the Federal Court has led many members of the Association to request this committee to present for your consideration such an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure as will tend to prevent a repetition of similar intervention by the Federal Courts. We are reluctant to criticise the action of the Federal Judge. The members of the Association can form their own opinion as to whether the release of Thaw on bail after the Governor and Attorney-General of the State of New Hampshire in written opinions had upheld the right of the State of New York to extradite him would or not be a nullification of extradition proceedings and whether it would or not relegate a power always heretofore regarded as purely an executive power to the Courts as a judicial power, and whether or not such action of the Federal Court would be open to the criticism of a foreign jurisdiction undertaking to determine the guilt or innocence of a party accused, the constitutionality and the validity of the judicial proceedings of a sister state in what necessarily must be an imperfect and inadequate examination of the question, and while the committee refrains from expressing an opinion critical of or derogatory to the Federal Judge, whose acts are involved in this matter, it does most warmly commend the action of the Attorney-General of the State of New York in endeavoring to uphold the dignity and validity of the acts and proceedings of the Courts of this State. We are also of the opinion that the complications which have arisen in the case of Thaw, and which it is not impossible may again arise, can be obviated by amending sections 438 and 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to provide that when the defense is insanity of the defendant and the jury are of the opinion that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime they return a special verdict finding him guilty but insane when the offense was committed. That thereupon if he be in custody and the Court deems his discharge dangerous to the public peace and safety it shall order him to be committed to a State lunatic asylum until he becomes sane; that if he do become sane the Court shall thereupon instead of at once ordering his discharge institute an investigation as to whether his freedom from all custody may be dangerous because of the probability of a recurring attack of insanity. If upon such investigation it be finally determined that there is no such probability he may be discharged. If there be reason to believe that he again may suffer from insanity he shall be retained in such custody as the Court shall direct. Under such an amendment a person adjudged to be guilty of a crime. but insane at the time of its commission, who escapes from an institution for the confinement of the insane or other place of confinement, would be a fugitive from justice, and no Court in any state or in any country with which the United States has a treaty for the extradition of criminals would interfere with or prevent his return to the State of New York, and your committee, therefore, advise the preparation of such an amendment and its submission to the Legislature. The matters referred to in this report are only the more important of those to which the attention of your committee has been directed. We wish to express our appreciation of the hearty co-operation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and of the County Bar Association of that county, with both of which associations we are in most cordial accord. All of which is respectfully submitted. Dated January 29th, 1914. A. T. CLEARWATER, For the Committee.. The President: What is your pleasure with the report? Charles E. McCarthy, of Troy: Mr. President, I move the adoption of the report. The report was duly adopted. The President: Report of the Grievance Committee, Mr. Burke, chairman. John H. Burke, of Ballston Spa, read the report of the committee, as follows: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES Your Committee on Grievances would respectfully report: That a certain complaint of the Cayuga County Bar Association was referred by our chairman to a subcommittee of three members of our committee, as provided by our Constitution and By-laws, for examination and report. Such committee unanimously reported that after investigation they were of the opinion that the matters alleged do not warrant any further investigation. The report of the subcommittee was fully considered by your Grievance Committee at its annual meeting and discussion thereon and investigation thereof had, and we unanimously approve of the conclusions of our subcommittee. Your Committee on Grievances therefore unanimously recommend that the Cayuga County Bar Association be requested to withdraw its charges. Dated New York, January 29, 1914. MICHAEL FURST, JOHN H. BURKE, Chairman. Sec. Pro tem. Randall J. LeBoeuf, of Albany: Mr. President, I move the adoption of the report. John D. Teller, of Auburn: Mr. President, as I was one of the prime movers in making these charges and was designated as a committee of the Bar Association to present them, I take great pleasure in expressing my satisfaction and approval of the report. I second the motion for its adoption, and say to the Association that I will return home and report to our association and I can assure you they will gladly acquiesce in the report. The report was duly adopted. The President: Miscellaneous business. Henry A. Forster, of New York: Mr. President, I move the following resolution: Resolved, That the President appoint a special committee of five to examine and report upon the historical aspect of the right and duty of the United States Supreme Court to declare laws in excess of or in contravention of the Federal Constitution to be null and void, in relation to the past and present practice of the British Privy Council in declaring ultra vires colonial, dominion, commonwealth and union laws, in relation to the views of the founders of the Federal Constitution as to the powers and duties of the federal judiciary, in relation to the present practice of the Canadian, Australian and South African Courts in declaring laws ultra vires, with power to confer with other Bar Associations, organizations and individuals interested in the administration of justice; also to report thereon to this Association, as well as to communicate their views to other Bar Associations, organizations and individuals interested in the administration of justice. |