Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-08-20
MUST REMAIN in PRISON
Result Of the Habeas Corpus Proceed
insS Of The Single Takers.
THE DECISION OF JUDGE WALES
Handed Down in Court Mon
! day Morning.


The Single Tax habeas corpus pro-
ceedings came up in the United States
court Thursday morning. Judge Wales
sitting. At 1850 o'clock hearing
commenced, Arthur Ii. Stephenson and
James j. IIaggerty. the prisoners who
had been selected for the test case,
having been brought up from Dover.
The Single Takers we're repres elted by
Walter II. Hayes of this city and
jackson III. Ralston of Washington,
while the interests of the authorities
of Dover were looked after by Edward
'Ridgely and Beniah Watson.
Mr.. Ralston, who made the opening
statement, said that the PRISONERS had
not bean tried by due process of law
according to Section ], Article IA,
Constitution of thee United States. He
held that they were arrested ON mere
verbal charge; that they were never
arraigned and never pleaded to such a
charge. Stephenson, he held, is con-
fined under void ordinance. .4
Judge Wales said that the only
question before the court was the
legality of the restraint; whether the
men are locked up in violation of the
Constitution of the United States. His
business, he held, was to administer
the laws of the United States and he
would not Interfere with the State
laws.
Arthur Ii. Stephenson, one of the
prisoners, was the first witness called.
Mr.. Ridgely objected to Stephenson
testifying, on the ground that Alder
man Cooper of Dover, before whom the
men ,had been tried, had the right to
commit the men, and that such
evidence would be foreign to the case
before the court. Whether the justice
was right or wrong had nothing to do
with the case.
Mr.. Ralston contended that the
records of the court could be. i'm
peached, and that he desired to put
Stephenson on the stand for the pur-
pose OF showing whether there was
due process OF law, claiming that he
had been denied the right to retain
counsel or produce witnesses at the
hearing in Dover.
Mr.. Hayes contended that, as it
appeared no power was given by the
State to inquire into the manner of
trial, then they should be given an
opportunity to prove that he was
- denied the rights beIongingg to a
citizen of the United States.
would be pleased, said Judge
Wales, to liberate these men if had
the power to do SO, if they are illegally
detained. AS understand the case the
magistrate heard the case and decided
on the testimony. l want to hear the
question of constitutional right dis
cussed. There is writ of error by
which these cases could be reached. i"
well" said Mr.. Ralston, 1--WE will
Withdraw Mr.. Stephenson" and Mr..
Stephenson did not testify.
Mr.. Ridgely desired to offer the
records of the trial. Mr.. Ralston OBJ
jected. and Judge Wales said it would
not be necessary to go back to the
records. m
Mr.. Stephenson was convicted, SAID
Mr.. Ralston, under section l, chapter
4, of the ordinances of Dover, and he
contended that the ordinance was void,
as it contlicted with the town charter
and the council had no right to pass il,
and therefore he asked for the liberia
tion of the prisoners
Mr.. Ralston cited authorities to
prove his assertions.
Mr.. Watson made statement, in
which he said the action of the town
ami spirit of the people had been mis-
represented; that the Council did not
prohibit holding meetings il the
streets were not blocked. Any political
party can hold meeting on the green
and no objection will be offered. He
contended that the action of the
authorities was according TO the town
ordinance, which prescrlbes that nobody
tan block the streets. He said that
the Single Takers had been warned
and told that if they did not abide by
the law they must take the conse-
an IL = -
the men.
Court took recess until O'Clock.
The case was resumed in the after
noon. g
Beniah Watson, of counsel for the
town of Dover, who was speaking in
the morning, continued his address.
lie started out to show that the ordi-
nance under which the men were con-
Victed was not in opposition to the
town charter, as had been asserted by
d. II. Ralston of counsel for the pris-
oners. He cited authorities to prove
his assertion. He held that the power
of the magistrate was final in these
cases, and endeavored to show by
various authorities, among them being
the municipal court of Wilmington,
that 1T was not necessary to have jury
trials in such cases. He denied the as
roIuon tnaI Ine men were not per-
mitted to have counsel and asserted
that the justice would have allowed
any Delaware lawyer to appear In their
behalf He did not think the codrt
could liberate them.
Mr.. Watson was followed by Edward
Ridgely, who said that no ground had
'been presented by the petitioners for
the discharge of James j. Haggerty,
and that Stephenson's discharge had
been asked for only ON the ground
that he had been convicted on an ordi-
nance that was void. He contended
That no law had been violated and that
the men had been regularly tried aud
convicted, and unless they could chow
tnat some law had been violated or
there had been some error, the court
could not discharge them. He con-
tended that if the Legislature had
power to incorporate the town of Dover,
Inen the magistrate had done his duty
lie reviewed the arrests and trials and
reterred to authorities. He said that
even II the ordinance referred to was
useless it was not void. The record
ana commitment show that an offence
was charged against tho men; they
We're arrested and taken before the
magistrate and he was bound by the
Jaw TO pass sentence. He imposed a
tlna nf Gin IN,