, 1891-06-25
WRIGHT STILL HELD.
He Will Serve Out the Term to
Which He Was Sentenced.
No Elk Post Facto Application of
the Law Was Made.
Prosecution BY Information De-
Cided BY the Supreme Court.


The supreme court yesterday handed
down an opinion in the Leonard Wright
habeus corpus case, in which Wright's
plea was denied and the sheriff ordered to
keep him 10 custody.
Wrights attorneys took his case to the
supreme court, arguing that as he had
been convicted in the district court on an
information filed, he should be released.
as at that time he was entitled to the
benefit of an indictment by a grand jury.
as the crime he was accused of was COM
mitted prior to the passage OF the law
making the fling of an information per.
missable. They further alleged that in
his case the conviction under the Law was
in the nature OF a conviction under an
ex post fdcto law. The attorneys also
brought up the question of the legality of
the holding Of a prisoner on the filing of
an information by the district attorney.
1t was, in the opinion of the court,
somewhat OF a singular case, and rather a
travesty on the law, inasmuch as the de-
iendaUt had pleaded guilty, and then al
forwards wanted a trial by a grand jury.
The supreme court held hat the law re.
garding the filing of an information in
stead of an indictment by the grand Jury
was legal, "a the constitution OF the state
provides in section 9 that the state legis.
lature may change the manner of proceed
ure. The provision reads as follows:
Unless otherwise provided by Jaw no
person shall, for "A felony, be proceeded
against crlminallv otherwise than by an
indictment, except, etc.
1t has been otherwise provided by
law" and therefore the prisoner has lost
no constitutional privilege.
The law follows very closely the law of
Michigan on the same subject, which has
been declared legal and constitutional.
The provision in the fifth amendment to
the United States constitution guarantee
ing a trial by grand Jury does not take
away from the state the right to abolish
the grand Jury, only providing for a grand
jury in United States cases.
In regard to the assertion that the
action of the law in Wright's case was in
the nature OF an ex post facto law, the
opinion recites a number of authorities on
the subject, including Blackstone and
others, and also an opinion delivered BY
the United States supreme court in the
case Of Calder vs.. Bull. The United
States supreme court gives four deiui
tons OF an ex post facto law as follows:
l.. Every law that makes an action
done before the passing of the law, and
which was innocent when done, criminal,
and Furnishes such actions.
?. Every law that aggravates a crime
or makes 1t greater han when committed.
3. Every law that changes the punish.
ment and inficts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when
committed.
4. Every law hat alters the legal rule
of evidence and receives less or differ
ent testimony than the law required at
the time of the commission of the %offense.
in order to convict the offender.
The following suggestion in regard to
increasing the efficiency of the law was
embodied IN the opinion: We cannot
refrain from abiding to one provision Of
the law relating IN prosecntinc by nav oF
in orr,ot;o, Tho sofs r,,lo ,ra,;doJ i,
Kansas and Micbigon that ~ ;nEormo,ion
shonld be fled against any person until a
n~raliminarv examinot,or bod boon bod
unless su,b examination sbouId no waved
except IN tho case of tugitiva from ms.
tice. was added 81 that tho iudco of q
court may order an inflammation fIo5 in