The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-08-10

uu. STATE Is radical In the precisions II contains
~ !. to restrain the judges from attempting
~ .unoence Juries in the decision OF questions
~ .cL This should b taken In consideration
~ s.vine construction to the statute and pre-
...uee the idea that the Legislature could have
AZ. % authorize the court to 1uodlr . YER.
" even II the Language used did NOT plainlv
unit the power of the supreme court. 10 that IL
SSsernination of the cause should only AFFECT
slsouy that part OF the proceedings which
uucsf . system OF Jurisprudence including Jury
court oA " 'N'
These considerations lead me 70 the conclu.
..uu Inat the imprisonment Of the petitioner 10
~"nous ous process OF law and In violation of
ne fourteenth amendment Of the constitution
" ~. the United stateA But on the other hand, BY
-. own showing, the petitioner Is presumably
suaiv OF the Intentional killing Of Q human be-.
ing with malice. The supreme court of the
s :. being OF the opinion that the verdict Of
sae jury Is to that extent sustained BY the evil
1eace, ana by existing laws OF this state, he 10
SUBJECT 20 punishment therefor, and not en-.
ued to b set at liberty, nor to Be BY this court
su'eioed from punishment His imprisonment
oncer the sentence passed upon him II NO more
uuiawfui than his discharge would be. Inas-
much rs the petitioner has been regularly tried
.nd sentenced In . court having complete turis-
o'ction OF the crime the prisoner and the case,
case under the general laws of the state can be
corrected upon review of the case In the SUI
prone court OF the United States BY q writ of
error, without doing injustice to either the pris-
oner or the people in the final disposition of the
case, do not consider that this court ought to
lean In his favor in the exercise of discretionary
powers TO the extent OF delivering him from
punishment for q crime whereof he has been
legally indicted and not acquitted.
Inc industry OF counsel has been productive
OF the presentation upon the argument Of an
array OF authorities in which the principles and
rules governing the case are set forth and ex-
pounded. viii not prolong this opinion to the
extent necessary to review or comment upon
tnem In detail. liz SUFFICIENT to say In general
that In behalf OF the petitioner the authorities
iuiiy sustain the proposition that any person,
VINO, within the territorial limits of the juris-
diction OF the United States government, IL de-
prived OF liberty. either without color of legal
authority. or because OF an act done in the ex-
ecution or attempted execution of a law of the
United States, or BY the execution of q pre-
tended law which 10 contrary to the constitu-
uon OF the United States, or OF a valid law
which by application to his particular case be-
comes In its operation and effect. in that in.
stance, violative OF any constitutional provision,
or BY an attempt to enforce valid law by pro-
ceeding otherwise than according to constitu-
uonai and lawful methods, may invoke the
power of . national court to secure the equal
protection of the laws and his liberty,
II he IL not by the law of the land
subject to further restraint. Bnt no precedent
has been cited for the discharge from the Gus
fody OF state officers, Of q person lawfully in.
dicted under valid law for q crime which is
bad in itself, without an acQuittai upon a law
ful trial, when there appears to be a lawfully
organised court having Jurisdiction to try him
and there Is no impediment to . lawful trial
and determination OF the case other than in
formal and void proceedings OF the court. In
Ex psrte Medley, 134 q. e., 160 the decision Of the
supreme court Is 10 the effect that q convict in
custody under q void judgment of . state court
and entitled to be released therefrom, should
not b set ct liberty If under any existing law of
the state there could be further proceedings In
his case. am unable to agree with the petit
toners counsel in the opinion expressed that
the petitioner will be unable to obtain writ
OF error from the supreme court of the United
States. While IL II true that the supreme
court o: the state has not - Jet passed
upon any federal question in the
case, 1t may be required to do 90.
The supreme court OF the state haD already en-.
tertained two appeals In this case and has re-
versed the judgments against him given after
two srccessful trials, and the law gives him the
right to appeal to that court again and ask for
reversal of the Judgment Of which he now COM
plains, on the identical grounds upon which he
II In this court asking for . writ Of habeas
corpus If the court on confederation Of such
appeal should adhere to the opinion which it
has heretofore given, be will then be clearly en-
titled to q writ Of error from the supreme court
Of the United States. Having that remedy it
would not be right to grant him Q writ of habeas
corpua tEx parte Bigelow lis q. S..2s;Ex parte
Wood, lao U. g., Es; Ex parte Ulrich 43 Fed.
Rep. 66L
The application for the writ is refused.