The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1890-06-26
NOT TOMORROW.
Clifton HOlden's Execution Will Not Take
Place on the Day Appeinted--Stay of
Proceedings Granted to June ed.

Clifton Holdens Execution VIII Not Take
Place on the Day Appeinted--Stay OF
Proceedings Granted to June ed.
The papers submitted in relation to
the petition for writ of habeas corpus
for Clifton Holden have been exchang-
ed by the respective attorneys, the writ
having been made returnable on Tues
day, when the arguments were to be
made before the U. S. Circuit court at
S. Paul.
Holden's counsel claim, in brief,
that the John Day Smith law is ex
post facto as to Holden's case, in that
the statutes in force at the time of the
commission of the murder, prescribed
only the punishment of death by hang
ing, while the John Day Smith law,
which went into effect on the Oath of
April, 1889, prescribed that the con-
victed party shall be in solitary con-
fncment after the issuance of the death
warrant, until the time of execution,
and not providing at what time execu-
ton shall take place after issuance of
death warrant Counsel claim it may
be one day or ten years solitary con-
finement, which would be additional
punishment.
Another point raised is that the law
is unconstitutional in this, that the
governor and not the court, fixes the
day of execution; that the fixing of the
day of execution is judicial act, and
that the Governor usurps the judicial
function in fixing the date of execu-
ton, and under his action in so doing,
void.
Tho response of the attorneys for
the State recites the circumstances of
the trial of Clifton Holden; that on
the 18th day of May, 1889, the jury
returned their verdict of guilty, that
afterwards, (Feb. 18th, 1890 the court
rendered Judgment and sentence,
which are given at length in the brief.
The response further shows the ne
cessity for removing Holden to Brown
county Jail, in accordance with the
statutes, cited. That thereafter, May
21st, 1890, Gov. Merriam issued his
warrant to the sheriff, directing the ex-
ecution of Holden May q, 1890. The
respondents further cite the statutes
regulating punishment for murder,
and in addition statutory provisions
giving the court discretionary powers
where punishment is not prescribed
by statute; also, providing that when
a law is repealed which repealed a
former law, the former law is not
thereby revived, nor shall such repeal
affect any proceeding commenced I'M
der the law repealed. And the re-
sponse further recites that the confne-
ment and custody of Holden has been
in pursuance of statutes cited. It de-
MES that Clifton Holden has been kept
in solitary confinement, but has simply
been confined in the jail as other pris-
oners have been confined. That he
has been permitted to receive visits
from relative and counsel, and that on
ly such restrictions had been placed
upon him as are consistent with prison
discipline. Finally, respondents deny
that Holden is restricted of his liberty
in violation of the laws of the State or
Of the United States. Both Sheriff
Mead and Sheriff Schmidt certify to
the correctness of the statements
made.
Holden's case came up before the
U. S. Circuit Court Tuesday. Justice
Nelson stated that he would prefer the
argument would be made while JUS
tice Miller occupied the bench, as he
had written the opinion in the Colorado
case which is relied on in this case.
Judge Miller is expected in St. Paul
next week, and the hearing is now set
for Wednesday, July I'd.