The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-31
NORDSTROM TO HANG.
Supreme Court AfIirms Verdict
of the Trial Court.


Cedar Mountain two years ago on Sovem-
Der q. Tn at was the gist Of the decision
handed down By the supreme court Of
Washington yesterday. Sordstrom. how
ever. slept last night unconscious Of the
moose that was hanging over his head
The crime Of which Eordstrom was con-
victed was coid-blooded. He had worked
for the Masons On their ranch ~ Cedar
Mountain. AMI LEFT because of trouble over
settlement o. wages. Some time after
he returned 10 the house and had . hot
argument with one of the Nasons. and
during the talk made threats. On the
evening of November q, rs the inmates Of
the house were sitting down TO supper,
Willie Mason being in front o. the curtain
less window, q shot rang out All sprang
TO their fee: except Willie, who pitched
headiong into the corner, pierced from
arm TO arm through his body by 44rcAli-
Der bullet
The assassin took to the mountain and
had disappeared before the startled in
mates had recovered self-pcssession.
Sheriff Woclery was ut the scene of the
murder early next morning and before
night had every path and county road
picketed. The inhabitants Of the noun
tain rendered great assistance and helped
in the trailing Of the murderer. Jack Nc
Donald was the man who made the cap
ture near Gilman and at the same time got
the gun that Is believed to have killed
Mason. The evidence WAS conclu-
sivs to the jury and Nordstrom
would have hung in siaugh-
ter house south of the city il
Judge Humes had not recalled the death
warrant. II seemed that an appeal to the
Woolery had never been officially notified.
Sordstrom's attorney thought the sheriff
was joking when he said he should pro-
coed with the execution unless restrained.
At the las; moment Judge Humes came
to the rescue and Sordstron's neck was
saved for the time being. The appeal was
perfected and argued. and now comes the
decision that affirms the action of the
superior court The decision says:
Frst-The question is presented here
that the appellant under the Federal con-
stifution is entitled to have the charge
against him presented upon an indictment
found by the grand jury. In this instance
the contention is based upon the language
OF the enabling act, which provided that
~ IS
IN form and not repugnant to the consti-
tuition of the United States. Much
investigation and injurious argument
have been expended by counsel in
an endeayor to impress the court with the
view that inasmuch IS the constitution
OF the United States in prescribing the
method of initiating prosecutions for in
famous crimes against the Federal law
makes the grand jury a sine qua non and
a ~ ny "a nnIv las fpl <T
charging an offen.e. therefore the state
must conform to the same
method, and any authority to prosecute
by Information must be repugnant to the
supreme Federal law and void In answer
10 the claim court says: I'VE may and
do yield assent TO all thus said with one
exception. and We wouid be justified
ment made In holding that if the
provisions of the nth amendment TO
the Federal constitution apply to the mat
ter OF prosecutions for crimes against
state Law, it would make no difference
we're there no mention OF the Federal con-
stituiion in the enabling act or consiltu-
tion of the state. The constitution OF the
United States would still be the supreme
Law OF the land, and all provisions OF the
state constitution or laws actually repug-
nant would be void. But the difficulty 10
that the constitution of the United States
does not assume to regulate prosecutions
for ofiensss against the state laws, and we
see no reason why there should be any de-
par,ure from the views expressed in Ly-
barger vs.. State. 2 Washington, $50
Second-The information was identica
with that in the State Vs. Frederick, 4
Washington, 204
Third-Error IS alleged because the court
below refused 70 quash the information
upon showing that on the preliminary
examins alton the charge made before JUS
tice Neagie was not pursued. but was dis
missed, new charge being made before
Justice Won Tobie. before whom there was
a fuil examination. No error
Fourth-The names of certain witnesses
were Endorsed upon the information be-
fore the trial commenced, as the statute
permits.
Fifth-Appellant complains that he was
not furnished second copy OF the in
formation when new witnesses were
added. The intention of the statute is to
apprlse the accused. as soon after the in
formation is flied as is reason ably pos.ibIe.
Of the names of the leading witnesses.
The notice of the addition OF new Wit
nesses meets the requirements. There
was notice IN this case.
Sixih-Appeiiant complains that the sd
mission OF certain boots and sacks In evil
dence because obtained BY unreasonable
search OF his person. was q method of COM
peilIng ham 20 give evidence against him.
self. The supreme court cannot sustain
this position.
Seyenth-ln rebuttal OF certain evil
cenCe the prisoner was compelled 10 sub
init To measurement of his feet. which his
counsel held WAS forcing him 10 give evil
dence against himself. The supreme
court regarded this as legitimate method
OF crosse
Elghth-The court admitted evidence re-
lating 20 the whereabouts of the prisoner
on the n ght the crime was committed, a
part OF which the appellant claims vas
unfair. which claim the supreme court
does not allow.
The niath exception relates 10 alleged
improper remarks of the states counsel
and rulings OF the court thereon, bu; as
what VAS said isnot preserved this court
csnnot know what the facts were
The tenth. eleventh and twelfth erceu-
tions are devoted 10 objections TO certain
instrusiions 20 the jury, IN sli of hich the
trial Judge Is sustained
The affidavit of WaIdrox produced on
TIE motion for 3 new trial va. wholly in
sufficient. The court hold. that il is now
TOO late 20 ask that the case be opened for
the admission Of testimony which would
contradict the prisoners sworn state.
menis. While the testimony vas wholly
elrcomstanua!, the court doubts IL an i'm
parma. person could arrive 81 any other
conclusion than tina, OF the Jury.
The other points raised are unnatural
and the court directs afHrmance of Yudx-
ment.
As soon ~ the news OF the decision
reached sheriff Woolerv last night he tele-
phoaed Night jaler Smith not 10 ALLOW
any one TO see Nordstrom. When that
message vas received a pnS~.T<-x.rrewx