New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-05-25
KENNLER NAY LIVE ENTILL AUTUMN
WILL HIS COUNSEL KEEP THE MURDERER
ALIVE FOR 80 PURPOSE SAVE DELAY

WILL Ms COUNSEL KEEP THE MURDERER
ALIVE FOR 80 PURPOSE SAVE DELAYl
Washington. May 2i.-Althoush the supreme Court
Yesterday decided against kcmmcr on all the consul
,,i,,I question, which It is thought be raised in
nj, case il is not absolutely certain thai the court a'
heard the last Of the case 1t the general opinion
tb,, thc decision Yesterday would finally settle the
p,otter and that all that would remain to be done
would be the pro forna vacation Of the ofder OF
Jud,, Wallace and the rescncncing OF hemmic'' il
ma, lee that counsel will stop here ana not Iur'er
prolon. what in view OF the decision yesterday must
Ice REGARDED a. "A hOpco,, case 80 FAR a. the supreme
Court l., concerned But it j, still possible to delay
tho day Of execution until next autumn at least by
bringing another appeal to the supreme Court
The situation + an interesting one. When Judge
Wallace made hi, order staying proceedings III
Reminders case he did - on the understanding tla'
counsel woud Immediately apph to the highest
tribunal for writ of habcas corpus. and thus obtain
final decision upon the constitutional objections
raj ed against the proposed mode of execution Judge
Wallace announced thai he granted the writ solely IN
order to save the prisoner, life until the cohstltu
ona point, al issue could be decided by the supreme
Court. This court declined 10 hear Mr.. sherman's
application for a writ of habcaS corpus for the reason
that IL could not regularly take notice Of an original
writ Of habca, corpu, in such case Judge Wallace
had made no decision on the writ Of habeaS corpus
to allow the supreme Court to act IN ito appellate
capacity. For the purpose, however OF securing
speedy determination of the question, involved, the
court directed Mr.. sherman to make application for
A writ Of error from the finding, Of the Court OF
Appeal, of Sew York! There Wa, substantial
difference in these two methods, the constitutional
objection, which could De made Oh the application
for writ II hahcas corpus being equally pertinent
in the application for writ Of error 80 that the
decision on one form OF pleading would really govern
the case If brought up n the other shape.
The court having decided the questions at issue
against Kemmlcr, Judge Wallace, when his writ be
come, rctlriabc on the third Monday In June will
II course rule against Nr. sherman the matter OF
the habea, rOrpu, writ. 1t must be borne in mind
that il was not on application tor Wit oi habeas
corpus that the supreme Court made it, decision
Now under he law, an appeal from AN order denying
L writ Of habc;, corpu, to the highest court in tho
country l. a matter Of right, and cannot under any
circumstances it is said. be refused. II will thus
be seen that counsel have the uuduubtcd legal privi
lego o.: appealing from the decision of Judge Wallace
next month and. the supreme Court Ia, d!ourned
Tor th" term. a hearing could not be had until next
October. OF the rcsult az that hcdru- there can
no doubt Tor the court has already decided against
kemmcr on all the points which cOuld be raised
Whether not. in view of the fact that the questions
issue have been settled, OF the understanding with
Judge Wallace that tn" supreme Courts decision
should bc accepted a. final. and Of the probability
,uch an appeal for the obvious and sole purpose Of
DELAYING execution. counsel Will still Insist upon doing
Al, lat They can TO stlyc of the day OF execution is
the question which remains to be determined.