Arizona republican., 1896-09-01
THE DISPUTED BOUNDARY Strip Between Arizona and California. To Be Carried to the U. s. Sup reme Court.
 Territorial
Arizona May Yet Have to Z4--- Califor ,ia on Account of the
 Penitentiary.

Los Angeles Herald: The habeas corpus application of Evaristo Chavez, which was before Judge Weelborn of the district court and before Judge Ross of the circuit court of the United States few months ago, and which was the subject of written opinions by both judges, denying the same, which opinions were heretofore presented to readers of The Herald, has been lately passed upon by associate justice of the supreme court of the United States, Stephen J. Field.
 It will be remembered that in this application Chavez claimed that he was being illegally held in the state of California, although at the time he yves serving two years sentence in the Arizona penitentiary at Yuma, AriZ., for selling liquor to Indians. Chavez based hfs claim of illegal con- finement upon the alleged fact that the strip of land upon which the peniten- tiary stood and upon which also is located about half of the town of Yuma, by virtue of the provisions of the treaties with Mexico, article V of the constitution of the state of Cali fornia, and the acts of congress estab- fishing the territory of Arizona and its boundaries was in the state of Cali fornia, and he could not therefore be held upon an Arizona commitment. Judges Ross and Wellborn decided that Chavez was being held upon disputed territory by virtue of a valid Arizona commitment, upon a regular convic- tion of the offense charged, and that he would not be allowed to raise a question of disputed boundary upon habeas corpus, and denied his applica- tion
 Chavez, through his attorney, Cal vert Wilson of this city, took the mat ter up on habeas corpus before Asso- ciate Justice Field who has just given an opinion upon the application Jus tice Fields opinion is interesting up- on the question as to what should eventually become of Chavez and the remaining convicts now confined in the Arizona penitentfary in Yuma, were such an application as this one of Chavez's granted.
 Justice Field says, among other things: Tt seems that the matter has been before Judge Ross. If it was be- fore him when holding the circuit court then the proper and adequate remedy is by appeal. If it was before him in chambers then Chavez is at lib erty to apply to some other federal judge. It is impossible for me, con- sistent with my numerous duties here to attend myself to this class of mat ters. I may say, however, that, were to grant the writ and should come to the conclusion that your client could not be held in the state of Cali fornia, would not discharge him ab- solutely, but before doing so would give notice to the proper authorities of Arizona so that he could be taken and confined in Arizona in execution of the judgment of the court. I re turn the papers in the case, that Cha. veg mayftake such further action in the premises as is advisable"
 While; Judge Field does not in hi: opinion foreshadow just what his de- cisfon would be as to Chavez being il legally confined in California, yet from its tenor it can be seen that he doe: not consider the application for tht writ groundless or wanting in merit for ii it were so, the writ would simply have been denied upon the facts ap bearing upon the face of the petition which was the position taken by Judges Ross and Wellborn.
 So far as this ending the matter i is learned that the case will now bt carried upon an appeal from the decis ion Of Judge Ross to the suprem, court of the United States and its mer its will thus be passed upon by thu entire count.
 A decision in this case upon fit merits will not only settle the ques tion of the true boundary line betwee1 California and Arizona, whether it i the channel of the Colorado river O a straight line drawn from the mid dle of the river Gila where it unite with the Colorado, due westerly to tn Pacific ocean, and cutting off a mar row strip of land (upon which stand the Arizona penitentiary) betwee. this line and the Colorado river; but will determine the fact as to whethe or not Arizona's penitentiary is in AT izona or California, and also will indi cate the legality or illegality of tn confinement of the rest of the Arizon convicts.
 There have been several efforts i the last few years by the residents ( Northern Arizona, to pass a la, through the legislature of that terr tory removing the penitentiary fro1 Yuma to Prescott, Ariz, not only upo the ground of the uncertainty of tn present location of the Arizona prisol but upon the more certain objection (
 it's proximity to the Mexican borde and the Colorado river, a location O
 fering peculiar advantages for escar