The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-15
SAN FRANCISCO'S STUFFING CASE.
Louis COINS Habeas Corpus Petition
Partially Heard.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
by Lawyers Nouges, Cook and
Kowalslly Yesterday.

The habeas corpus proceedings in the
case of Louis Cohn, who was adjudged
guilty OF contempt of court by Judge
Wallace OF San Francisco for refusing to
answer questions as 10 his residence on last
October and as to his acquaintance with
one l.. Stelnberger, who was on trial for
Illegally registering Cohn, on tue ground
that 1t would criminate himself, was
heard before the Supreme Court yester-
day, Justices Garoutte, Harrison and
Mcfarland being present.
j. NJ. Nouges, counsel for respondent,
stated counsel were agreed that the only
question they wished settled was as to
whether the questions must be ans wered
or not, and whether immunity was
granted.
Carroll Cook. counsel for petitioner,
gave TO the court resume of the case. Mr..
Nouges also made Il statement that the
action was brought by Stillwell against
the Registrar, to have several thousand
names stricken from the Great Itegis ter
as bong those OF persons not eX lsting.
Cohn registered from the baldwin Hotel,
ana was called as Il witness. His testi-
mony was SO conflicting that Attorney
-
OF immunity IL he would tell who induced
him 10 register. He thereupon said that
his lufiner statement was iaiSe, and that
he had been Induced to register by GER
tain deputy III the Registrars office.
Stelnbergcr was put on trial and Cohn
refused TO answer certain questions, on
the ground that 1t wOnld tend 10 criinl-
nate him, ana was fined $500 for contempt.
Mr.. Cook cOntended that The Judge eX-
ceeded MS authority, as he WAS sitting in
tie capacity OF Il Justice of the Peace and
could nne Tor hot more than 500. lie
clted authorities on the point OF the
courts power 10 compel Il witness To an
) ~ CT questions that would tend to GRIM
mate himself. COhn had to guard HIM
sell against prosecution on several Grim
lual charges and take care thai he did not
cflilluate himself Oh any point on which
Immunity Was not guaranteed 10 him.
The protection from prosecution under
one section OF the law did not protect him
from prosecution on another Charge.
Even the Legislature could not protect
HIM in such Il case.
Section j. OF The purity of elections law,
he thougnt, was unconstitutional, in that
II lnlrlHGed on the powers OF the LN ecu
tive. For these reasons he claimed that
the commitment was insufficient and he
asked 70" Cohn'S discharge.
Mr.. ouGes did not see III what COhn
swerIng the questions as 10 where he
lived ana II he knew Steinberger. He
cited authorities as to the power of The
court 10 compel witness to answer cues
tons. He thought the only question at
Issue was as 10 whether Section ~ granted
full immunity 10 the witness Nearly
lorty years ago the question was settled
that the prisoner could not shield him
self behind the constitutional provision.
III witness Is to DO Il judge as TO whether
his testimony viii criminatc him, wo
may just as well open the prison doors.
Tor no more criminals will ever enter
thom. Section - does not interfere with
the Executive prerogative of pardon, but
simply provides for methods OF getting
evidence. 1t not only grants immunity
to witness, but goes even farther and
makes his testimony a bar to proceed
ings against him for the cftense in rel2-
ton TO which be testities.
ii. /. howalsky addressed the court on
behalf of the petitioner and consumed
the remainder OF the session.