Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-11-04

Can Witnesses be Imprisoned for the Pur-
pose of Holding Them as Witnesses
When They Have not Committed Any
Crime:
The shooting of William johnson last
Sunday night on Rosabel street, is liable
to prove an interesting case in legal
point of view, in the following way:
HOW IT IS SO.
When Ole Sorenson, who did the shoot
ing that caused the death of Johnson, was
rraigned in The municipal coupt the next
morning, Peter B enson. Charles Hilton
and Charles Newstrom, the persons who
we're relied upon to prove the case, were
brought into the municipal court as wit
nesses. When the case was disposed of
In that court the witnesses above named
were directed to give bonds in the sum of
$4,000 each, for their appearance at
the next term of the district court.
VI course 1t was impossible
for them to furnish this amount of bail,
and they were thereupon committed by
the court to the county Jail, for the pur-
pose of holding them as witnesses to ap-
pear before the grand jury and also before
the district court.
HABEAs CORPUS.
This being the state of the case the wit
nesses, through their counsel, Mr.. G. D.
CBrien, applied to the district court for
writ of habeas corpus with wich to Oh
tain their release. This writ was made
returnable yesterday afternoon before
Judge Simons, in the old court house.
Mr.. G. D. O'Brien appeared on behalf of
the prisoners and Mr.. j. J. Egan for the
state.
THE QUESTION PRESENTED.
The proposition before the court is an
exceedingly interesting one, and though
it is not wholly new in all its aspects to
the courts of this state, it has never been
judicially and definitely passed
upon. The simple issue in this
case is. can the courts of the
state of Minnesota imprison a witness.
simply for the purpose of keeping him as
witness. 1t will be remembered that the
late Ii. f. Masterson, several years ago
presented the same question to the court
but IN that case there were some other
questions involved, SO that the case he
presented was disposed of by the decision
of some of the other questions and the is
sue presented in the present case was not
decided.
WHAT THE WITNESSES SAT.
In their petition the witnesses are made
to say that they are imprisoned without
any just cause. They declare that they
have not refused to obey any lawful pro-
cess Of the court, nor declined or refused
to appear as witnesses. They are now
ready and willing to appear and have been
ready and willing to appear in any court
to which they may be called, at any time
or place to which they may be cited as
witnesses, in any criminal cause,
and to obey any mandate
or process; that in issuing the commit
Eent that consigns them to the felon's cell
the municipal court acted solely and ex-
tirely upon the question of the ability of
the petitioners to give bail for their ap-
pearance in the sum of $4,000, and that
there was no evidence whatever before the
municipal court showing or tending to
show that there was any reason or cause to
believe that these petitioners, or either of
them. would absent themselves from the
state of Minnesota, or would not respond
TO any subpoena or process of the court
when called upon.
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT.
As above intimated, the papers in the
case presented to the court the simple
question whether under the laws and con-
stitution of this state a person can be
committed and held in custody without
having committed any criminal offense
and being solely spectators of the offense
charged. In arguing the case on behalf of
the petitioners Mr.. U'Brien reviewed such
portions of the law ana those parts
of the constitution of the state
as bore upon the question, compared one
with the other, and generally argued
agains. the right to imprison the parties,
on the ground that such imprisonment was
unjust and hard, wholly unauthorized, and
repugnant to justice. On the other hand
MIR. ESan argued tEat the imprisonment
was In pursuance OF the statute of the
state, was part of the social contract and
was In the interest Of the administration
CT justice.
TAKEN UNDER ADJUSTMENT.
When the argument was concluded Judge
Simons proceeded to explain in regard to
the common law connection with the case,
and then considered the statutes in regard
to it. Ee finally concluded, however, that
he would not give decision then but
that he would think the matter over till 10
o'clock this morning when he Will deter
mine the matter.