The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-29
TO SAVE CRAEMER.
His Lawyer in Vain Raises
Legal Objections
rse CONSTITUTION ATTACKED.
ra- Accused MurdeFer's Trial Set
Large Property Owners Charged
with Frsaa-coart Notes.

saS her BABY on August Il. Ia South Seat
&c. The prisoner was accompanied By
his attorney. =. Sodegberg, appointed By
che eours. and the state was represented
- Prosecuting Attorney Miller. Mr.
soaerhsrg presented q written motion TO
- aside the Information which in this
esse. be said. was simply an affidavit made
hy A. O. Mcbride, the deputy prosecuting
attorney. containing list of some twelve
witnesses for the state.
The grounds for this motion ~ argued
ty Mr. s0derberg were: That there had
been no preliminary investigation into
the facts before any committing magis-
trsis, he claiming that where . person
vas prosecuted on information In place OF
an Indictment, there must Drst be held
preliminary examination and tes;i-
raony taken for the state sufficient
20 make out urima facie case, and
the transcript Of that testimony must
BE fled in the superior court.
on which alone an Information could be
based. This step the defendant could not
vase IN capital case. The affidavit Of
tie deputy prosecuting attorney was not
Sufficient 10 pat man on trial for his life.
10 this case no testimony bad been taken.
AID up 10 the time Of the motion no
transcript Of the proceedings before the
Justice had been filed.
Mr. Miller replied that the defendant
was taken before Justice Caldwell on
August rs or L.. and through his then at
soTney waived examination, and the tran
script from Justice Caldwsli's court had
been mailed on the preceding day to the
clerk of the superior court.
Judge Hnmes denied the motion. saying
that he was armiy convinced that de-
fendant could waive preliminary exam
nation. lie said the motion would have
been sell taken IL no opportunity had
been gwen the defendant 10 have pre-
ilminary hearing before a committing
magistrate, but, as il was nos denied that
such an opportunity had been Afforded, be
would sustain the information.
Nr. soderberg then excepted. and imme-
diaiely died demurrer to the iniorma-
ton, attacking the jurisdiction OF the
court The grounds advanced were that
en- Indictment by grand jury was tndls-
pensAbls in Washington 10 a prosecution
for a capital offense; that by the state
constitution the people had. ~ required By
section Of the enabling act admitting
Washington into the Union. adopted the
constitution of the United States rs n
whole and ell the amendments. and that
that part OF the state constitution was re-
pngnans 20 and overrules the subsequent
clause in the constitution which authorizes
prosecutions to be founded on information.
Mr. eoderberg claimed that this was a
legal, and not political question; the
enabling act was a compact OF the highest
solemnlty between the Federal and the
state government, which the latter can
never violate. As an instance he cited
Utah. which Is nov being admitted, the
enabling act declaring that polygamy
shall never prevail in that state. The
state of Utah can never adopt q eonstitu-
ton authorizing poiygamy; any such at
tempt would be an act void. lie claimed
that the enabling act admitting Washing
ton. the two Dakotas and Montana into
the Uaion contained restraining clauses
on all these states which the en-
abiIng act admitting other states
did not contain, 80 that, while
California, which came into the Union
without any such req uirements as are con-
tanned in our enabling act--that she must
adopt the whole constitution of the United
slAtes--can prosecute her criminals by In.
formation. We must prosecute by indiet-
meni in accordance with the provisions Of
The United States constitution.
Judge Humes held that all the states
we're equal in respect TO this question that
the effect of adopting the constitution OF
the United States vas simply that the
state OF Washington consented that. as to
criminal cases in the United States court,
the rules laid down in the Federal consti-
tntion should be adhered to, and tn At the
state was empowered 10 regulate the GRIM
inal practice and procedure in its own
way, untrammeled ny the constitution OF
the United States; further. that the con-
stiiuiion of the United States was no more
applicable 10 this case than we're its pro-
visions Tor the manner OF slecting q presi-
dent aud vice president applicable to
Washington. lie theEeupon oyerrulsd the
demurrer.
Defendant excepted and asked 10 have a
notice Of appeal from both orders entered
on the minutes. This Judge Hames re-
fused TO do holding the orders non-appeal-
sh.e Here again a new excepnon vas
catered.
The defendant was then called on TO
plead 10 the information, and In strong.
Gear voice answered "Not guilty
AAe court aAANu1NeA NitSA~sNt - 80
oay for the trial
Mr.. Soderberg then gave notice that on
September he would probably move for a
continuance. lie claimed that the de-
PENDANT. from his statement Of the case
made 10 himself, has q complete defense
IA the shape Of an alibi. but that the only
witness By winch this could be proved vas
asomeshat eccentric mining prospeetor.
JACK Quincy. who was nov somew here IN
the CAscade mountains. bat whose exact
Whereabouts we're unknown. and the de-
feaasns bsing psnniless, With ~ife and
children on his hands, he Was unable 10
Dispatch runners into the mountains 10
locate Quincy. out that whenever be vas
found ,ns defendant would then be ready
ios immediate trial. Quincy. Mr. Sober
berg SAID. vas an engineer In some oil
vorks near Los Angeles, very ospan'e
nan. hat addicted 30 periodical sprsss.
lie had lust finished enc u these sprees az
Tacoma on the day q the homicide. His
description is as foliows: Middle age.
dark complexion. black mustashe. no
ssaFd. dark eyes. slender in euild aud an
American.
This closed the proceedings and ihs
PRISONER was returned 20 bis cell. evidsnuy
fevlnE better IS the result u has eoanssi's
seogts IA his behalf