The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-10-09
Havmond's Contempt Case Before
the Supreme Court.
Testimony Admitted cOnditiOnally-A Decis-
ion to Be Rendered at Los Angeles.
Steve Gage Must Answer.

of the Grand Jury, who followed the tech
meal arguments with consuming interest
When the petitioner, Edgar b. Raymond.
. appeared. lie took a seat next to his uncle,
Creed Raymond. and both were soon in
deep consultation. Near him sat General
w. II. /. Barnes and ex-Judge Cope, who
also appeared in his behalf.
On the other side of the table were Attor-
ney e General Hart, District Attorney
Barnes, eX-JuStice Rhoades and Ben Nor
gan, who appeared for the people. Near
them sat Barclay Henley and Jere Lynch.
ON TIE BENCH
When the courtroom was filed 10 pack
ing, all the members of the court entered
with the exception Of Justice Mcfarland,
who is travelling in the East,
As soon As the justices had taken their
seats Greed Raymond arose and stated that
he desired to be heard on a petition for
writ OF prohibition to restrain Judge Wal
lace from hearing the Gage contempt pro-
cepdings TODAY, but the Chief Justice ruled
that the members were there 10 hear the
HAMMOND contempt case, and had assembled
for that purpose. Alter the disposal OF that
case 1t would take up the question Of the
writ.
On this ruling District Attorney Barnes
arose and read the return to the writ Of
habeas corpus, setting forth the cireum-
stances If the petitioners refusal to appear
and testify before the Grand Jury, aud his
subsequent citation and sentence Tor con-
tempt.
THE PETITIONERS CONTENTION.
Edgar Is. Raymond, the petitioner, re-
Piled that he cuntended that there was no
Grand Jury, not even a de facto Grand
Jury. Even if there were de facto Grand
Jury, which he denied, he cOut3nde1 that he
was entitled to his discharge He asked
permission to address, the court on these
points.
District Attorney Barnes objected 10 his
being heard upon the iilegallty or legality
Of the Grand jury on the ground that the
petitioner was simply before the court as
Tecacitrant witness, and, that IS such, he
had no right TO go into such matters.
RAYMOND asked leave 10 submit the record
Of the formation OF the Grand Jury, but the
District Attorney objected 10 the introduce
ton of any testimony in the form Of
record or anything else. He cited the Can
non case, and claimed that it disposed of
uaymond's case. because by this decision a
witness could not question Grand Jury on
q collateral proceeding.
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Attorney General Hart f0llOwedin a short,
clear argument, ID which he cited the cases
Of GoldeDSOn, Sothwell, Colby Hunter,
Donald, All Chung ana Slearnes, all in the
California REPORTS IN when the court had
held that not even defendant who was
indicted could attack the validity Of Grand
Jury Ola 4 collateral proceeding, and much
more 50 was il that witness could not do 1t.
a witness could not 30 farther than de-
PENDANT.
Greed Raymond began to address the
court, aud he was asked for whom be APP
peaTel. i appear fer Raymond, in fact as
attorney foT every body, he replied and
continued in a long speech, his contention
being that even upon the records oil the
court there was no Grand Jury IN the city
and county, aud there being no Grand Jury
there cuulu have been DO subpoena issued Tor
the petitioner to disobey. His position was
that there was DO GTunQ Jury or witness to
consider, but simply prisoner in the County
- jail, committed upon the order of court
issued in excess Of its jurisdiction. He
claimed that any Judgment could be attacked
and taat there was an absolute nuiilty in
HJymuud's sentence because of fraud in
the impanelment of the Grand Jury. He
inquired II only person under indictment
could attack the validity OF the Grand Jury,
RAYMOND SUBSIDIES.
The Chief Justice remarked that some
such decision was made in the Cannon
case.
don't think so,' replied Raymond
[ think it does so very distinctly and
explicitly" was the answer Of Chi-f Justice
Beatty, and il was several moments before
Raymond recovered his legal equilibrium
after the setback the answer gave him.
The Chief Justice stated that he thought
the discussion had taken too wide a range
Tie only question before the court was this:
Did Judge Wallace exceed his jurisdiction
in sentencing Raymond for contempt?
The solution OF this question might involve
the consideration OF the other question:
Did Judge Wallace exceed his jurisdiction
in the Hupaneiment OF the Grand jury?
he stated thar the court would retire to
consider whether they would admit evil
druce or decide at once the main question
iuyo we'd.
After five minutes absence. during which
tile utmost interest and excitement was
shown by the spectators, the members of
the court returned, and the Chief Justice
stated thai the court had decided to admit
testimony subject to the objections of the
people, and would let il 90 for what il was
worth, without deciding whether or not it
was material.
AN AGREED STATEMENT.
Considerable dispute arose over the pre-
sentation Of the testimony. Raymond
wanted Judge Wallace and Eisor Scott
subpenaed. 1t was finally agreed on Attor-
ney-General Harris suggestion to accept the
agreed statement OF facts which had been
prepared in the Chute case, on the writ Of
review which was thrown out of the Su-
pfeme Court some DAYS ago.
District Attorney Barnes admitted that
there we're 100 more names III the box when
the elisOr was appointed, and that no affida-
Wit was hled against the Sheriff. BE agreed
to submit the case to the court without ar
F. gument, but this did not seem satisfactory
10 the other side.
justice Paterson asked the petitioner to
state briefly the points on which he at
tackled the validity of the Grand Jury, and
Mr. Raymond replied that Judge Wallace
3 had violated the law in its impeachment,
and that the appointment of an elsor had
Jeen Illegal.
AGAINST THE GRAND JURY.
Greed Raymond followed in a long argu-
ment, IN which he held that there was no
Graud Jury, that Judge Wallace had VIC
lated the law OF the land, and the so-called
Grand Jury was designed to blacken and
tarnlSh the regulations of men who had
o. made the State. He had great respect for
Judge Nallace's learning ON civil law but
none whatever for ms knowledge of GRIM
inal law. He never pretended to know
anything about it.
Atomey-General Hart and ex-Judge
Rhoades c0ntendrd that no man should be
permitted to attack the legality of the
Grand jury unless indicted. Such was the
rule Of the curt unless Overruled. he held
that Section 1872 Of the Political Code. re-
lallng to elisOrs, never applied to San Fran
cisco. The elisOrS in that section meant
only those appointed during the tendency
Of an action and did not apply TO grand
iuries.
After hearing the arguments the Court
stated that in view of the authorities which
ca side desired to present it would not be
able TO decide the matter until they arrived
in Los Angeles, for which place they leave
this morning.
WRIT DENIED"
After this announcement Creed Raymond
filed a petition for a writ OF prohibition to
restrain Judge Wallace from hearing the
contempt case of S. r. Gage, set for to-day,
pending the case now before the Supreme
. Court The court retired, and, after an
hours time, sent the petition for the writ
back to the clerk with the works written
across its back. Writ denied"
So, Mr.. Gage will have to answer before
Judge Wallace to-day for his disobedience
of tile Grand Jury's subpoena.
DISGRACEFUL.