St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-06-21
TILT OVER AFFIDAVITs.
Judges Disagree as to Their Suffi-
cheney.

cheney.
~ would like to say right here.
judge" said Commissioner McCafferty,
~ do not think the affidavits are suffi-
cient. l would like to hear you upon
the merits of the affidavits. any remarks
you see fit to make. AS they were read
they did not seem to me sufficient, and
I would be glad to give you time to
make any recommendation"
"We would be glad to hear from you
as to the insutficlency of the afidavits. :"
exclaimed Judge Shaw '.They were
framed, understand, under the stat
utes of Minnesota"
81 simply make the suggestion;I do
not say anything further.'
Judge Shaw read the statute under
which the affidavits were framed, and
considered they were in every respect
correct if the statute quoted was the
was no other statute that he knew of.
Mr.. Hay Immediately arose to discuss
the merits of the case.
81 should be glad to hear from you
further" interrupted Mr.. McCafferty.
addressing Judge Shaw, ''but do not
care to hear from the district attorney
on this point" he added with i'm
patience.
but the district attorney would like
to be heard upon it," exclaimed Mr..
Hay warmly. 81 have consulted with
the counsel for the prosecution, and we
are unable to discover what is wrong
with the af1davits. If they are made
under the statutes of 1889, it seems to us
that the defendants are entitled to
change of venue. 1t is only by virtue
of the law of 1885," he argued with We
hemence, "that there is any authority"
Mr.. Hay then narrated his experience
IN similar case in Cro0kston about
two months ago. He said he had filed
complained against one Barney Wahl.
Mr.. Steenerson appeared for the de-
fense and filed an affidavit similar to
those under consideration upon the
ground that the practice in the
federal courts must be the
same as in the state courts.
Mr.. Hay asserted that he resisted the
motion for change of venue, but the
commissioner determined that the de-
fendant had the inalienable right to a
change of venue, announcing at the
same time that he personally had no
prejudice against the defendant; but, If
the defendant believed that prejudice
really existed, it was sufficient ground
for change, and that he. the commits
sioner, had no right to try it. Mr.. Hay
recited the particulars of the case in de-
tail, and said that Judge Wilson, upon
habeaS corpus proceedings, had ruled
that change of venue was proper.
Therefore, Mr.. Hay was of the impress
sion that the defendants in the present
venue, in the event the affidavits were
held sufficient. Neither he nor his as
sociates were able to discern any in
suficiency, however.
Mr., LaWler felt constrained to eX-
plain his position upon the question, and
also with reference to the allusion made
by the district attorney concerning the
unanimity of opinion of the counsel for
the prosecution upon the snfficiency of
the affidavits. He felt as though there
were no question as to the mere suffi-
cheney. So far as he waSlcOncerned per-
sopally, there was grave doubt, owing
to the character of the proceedings, as
to whether the law that had been cited
really applied to the case under cOnSid-
Grafton. He had gathered that Judge
Nelson had rested the decision in the
case cited upon the law Of 1889, and
that 1t was proper that when the COM
missioner desired he could send the
case before another coort. There is, he
thought, serious question as to whether
the United States statutes ap-
piled to criminal proceedings. Only
three years ago. In the case of the Min
neapolis post-off1ce robbery, the courts
had held it did not apply.
81 am personally convinced" he con-
tinued, 'sthat these warrants were is
sued by the court commissioner as a
nrOner ma pistratp Of the TTnitad Statas
and whatever ruling he may make in