Idaho news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1887-1891, 1888-10-27
srRErcH OF rEcHNlc.
An Enort Being Made TO Prove inc
Courts at Fault in the Anarchist

4 An EuOEA HFhn2 A1AF W
Courts at Fault in the Annrehist
| Case.
A fresh effort Is being made b. the friends
| and attorneys OF the anarchists, some 81
whom were executed and some sent to the
states prison, to nave the three who are now
/ confined In the penltentiary, Samuel Fieiden,
/ Michael Schwab. aud Oscar Neebe, released
/ by legal procedure, involving the nullihea'
| tion Of the Judgment hy which they are now
detained. Should they b. successful In hay.
| ing the proceedings BY which tue men are
now detained declared Irregular such de-
elaration would also extend necessarily TO the
proceedings under which the other four new
hanged, and the hanging would therefore
become illegal.
The point on which this Is sought TO be ac-
| eoinplished Is not new but has hitherto been
| little discussed. IL relates 10 a teehnicality
only. In the fall of 1881, when the jury had
| returned the verdict OF death and all The
usual formal notions were disposed OF, SEN
tence was passed aud the day for the eSecn-
| tion fixed on Dec. 3 A supersedeas was ob
tanned from the state supreme court and the
proceedings reviewed and the court finding
the proceedings In the criminal court Tree
from any vital error passed ,ntence aud liked
Nov. III, 1887, as the date OF tue execution
/ The United States supreme court was aIN
pealed to, but declined to interfere. In CIV
ing this decision reasons were given, and II
Is ON point that the court then left unde
cided that the present attempt to rescue the
imprisoned men is based.
Counsel for the condemned men claim ed
that the proceeding OF the supreme court OF
the state OF Illinois was lrregua ar and con-
trary to the constitution OF the United States
for the reason that the prisoners were not
present IN court when sentence was passed
or the decision OF the court read. However,
the record OF the supreme court OF Illinois
began with the words; 'Ou this day agaia
came the partles,q etc, and the United
States supreme court construed this TO
mean that the men were actually present.
In stating their reasons for refusing the ap-
plication for superseleas the Uutted States
supreme court SAID on this point: THE OBJ
lection that the defendants were not actually
present In the supreme court OF the state at
the time sentence was pronounced cAa not
be made on the record as II now stands, be-
cause on its face Il shows that they we're
present. II this Is not in accordance with
the fact the record must be corrected be-
low, not here. 1t will be time enough o
consider whether the question presents u
federal question when tie correction has been
maden
This statement left open the question
whether there was federal question involved.
Accordingly, about six months ago, Moses
Solomon, attorney for the anarchists, htai q
motion IN the supreme court at Ottawa
asking that the defendants were not present
In court when judgment was pronounced.
About a week ago Atty..Gen. Hunt died q
reply to the motion cOutestlng H. Mr.. Sato-
mon went to Ottawa Friday to have the mo-
ton taken up. Finding Mr.. Hunts reply he
asked for time 20 make ply to Il aud re-
turned to Chicago attending 10 be at Ottawa
with Capt Black on Monday la order 10 have
the motion argued and disposed Of before tie
end Of the present term OF the supreme
court.
at Is peculiar thlngn Mr. Solomon saiI
yesterday. ''All we ask Is to have the record
amended 50 rs to show tue facts o. course
we notified Mr.. Hunt, but diI not expect anY
objection to such a motion Bug here he Ii
fighting IL Our position Is this: The record
states that the defendants were present la
court at the time that the Judgment was
given against them Ia the supreme court
We want the record to show that they wrrs
not present, rs every one Il well aware they
were not, being confined Ia the Cook caan.
~ jail al the time, while the court met
az Ottawa. What viii he done when that Is
done | am yet unable to say. But before
ANYTHING can BE- done we want that IN the
proper shape 10 conform 10 the truth When
the case went to the United States supreme
court the objection was made that the de-
fendents were not present In court, aud had
no opportunity to make objections that they
would have made, or their attorneys, IL they
had known that judgment was 10 be pro.
Dounced against then.n
The melton to have the record amended
briefly states the facts above sDecid.d The
reply OF the attorney general opposing the
motion sets forth three DIinss In opposition
TO the claims 81 tue condemned men Flrtt
the recital 10 the record That this daF again
canR the parties i not false bat In con-
temptation Of law IL true Secondly, tho
parties, plaintiffs In error, were not tried Ia
TINS court, aud their personal presence was
not necessary 10 enable the court to take iur
isdIctiDn Of, consider aud decide the uass.
ions involved. Thirdly, N BY auythtnr mani
fest 10 the record or In tho opinion of tbs
court the rights ~ plaintift4 iu error were
preiudlced that fact should have been brought
to The consideration OF the court on sprllra
ton io- n rehearing, but eau not be corrected
on motion
The position which she atGorneys Tor tho
imprisoned men take Is that while there h M !
constitutional or statutory provision 10 that
erect tue common law entities prisoner to |
be present when sentence Il pronounced. and
mat the proceeding Is not valid II no Ia not |
lhey claim that the decision Of the supreme |
court Of the state was not merely dismissal |
OF an aDortiVe appeal, leaving the case In e. |
aciiy the same position "a IL no appsnl had |
Deen taken, but amounted TO passinp Of |
sentence because the court not only dIsmiss. |
ed the appeal but fixed the day OF ex cutlon
on different day from that fixed By the low. |
er court.
Should the desired correction be made in
the record the Intention Is 10 proceed by waT |
OF baDeas CORPUS either III the state aunrerne !
court or the United States supreme court nm. |
on the claim that the prisoners are unfaw
tully detained 10 custodY.-LhicggD TtHea.