The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1896-08-13
THE SINGLE TAKERS
Hateas Corpus Proceedings IN the
u. S. Court. al
EVERY SEAT IN COURT FILLED


Every scat in the United States Court
room was occupied shortly after 10 O'Clock
this morning when Sheriff Shaw OF Kent
county walked into court with Arthur
II. Stephenson of Philadelphia and James
j. Haggerty OF this city two Of the Ina
prisoned Single Takers. They were tho
Wits to the court claimed they are deprived
Of their liberty contrary to the constitution
OF the United States and imprisoned with
out due process Of law.
The petitions to the court state the facta
OF the arrests, trial and commitment to
jail at Dover. Each petition sota forth tho
following reasons why the imprisonment
of Its maker Is illegal.
"First-That this sentence under which
your petitioner Is held is illegal and void.
'Second-That the commitment under
which your petitioner is held is illegal
"Third-That Peter L. Cooper, alderman
as aforesaid, was without jurisdiction to
impose the sentence under which your
petitioner Is held
"Fourth-That said alderman was with
out Jurisdiction to hear and finally deter
mine said alleged charge.
"flfth-That your petitioners deten-
tion and imprisonment Is contrary to tho
Constitution and laws of tho United
States
"Sixth-That there Is no provision by
any law of the State of Delaware whereby
your petitioner can appeal from the deci-
sion Of said alderman the said decision
and sentence therefore deprives your peti.
tioncr of his liberty contrary to the Cop-
stituton and laws of the United States
''Seventh-Thnt the said alderman who
passed and imposed the above sentence do
MED to your petitioner the right of trial
by jnry, r
Shaw, keeper Of said county jail, without
due process of law and contrary to the
Constitution of the United States ;"
1t was 1870 o'clock when Judge Wales
entered court and took his seat on the
bench y
The Single Takers were represented by
Walter Hayes of this city, and Jackson H,
Raston, of Washington. Edward Ridg.
ley and Beniah Watson Represented Shef.
if Shaw, of Dover. Judge Wales stated
TINT he was to administer the laws of the
United States and he would not inter-
fcre with the State laws.
There Is, SO far AS the court saw, only
one question before the court. The legal
ity of the restraint: whether the men arp
in custody in violation Of the constitution
OF tbs United States.
MI: hhatoh III oi'ehihS sh!u tnao tnY
petitioners hnd not been tried by due prof.
cess Of law according to the first section Of
the constitution. They were arrested on q
mGro verbal charge, they were never atS
lo!ghcd and never pleaded guilty to suCR
q. argos, Mr., Stephenson Is confined under
IL void ordinance.
Arthur n. Stephenson was then sworn
and Mr.. Riagley objected to any evidence
being proven by Stephenson. The matter
l,na lunt, InI hp tntn IT khaA
the alderman had the right to commit the
man Such evidence would DO foreign I'd
the case before the court. Whether the
justice was right or wrong has nothing to
do wish the case, but no clash OF author.
ity can take place.
Nj. Ra!sGop mlip tanned that the records
of inferior courts may be lmpeachcd. For
the purpose of showing whether there was
or not due process of law Is the reason w8
not have the right to produce witnesses or
secure counsel at the trial In Dover
The Court--lt is hearing and not a
trial which takes place before justice Of
the peace
Mr.. Hayes said it appeared that as no
power was given by the State to inquire
into the manner Of trial then we should b4
given chance to prove that he was denied
the rights belonging toa citizen Of tho
United States.
Judge ,Walcs-I would .bo pleased to
libcrate these mon 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 tosti,
mony. want to hear the question Of
constitutional right discussed. There Ia q
writ of error by which these cases could bG
reached
Mr. Ralston-Wc withdraw Mr. Stephen
son.
Mr.. Rldgcly-We offer the records of the
trial us evidence.
Mr. Ralston objected and judge Wales
said it was not necessary to go back to
tho records.
Mr.. Rnlston said that the ordinances
under which Stephenson was convicted
was section chapter 4 Of the ordinances
of Dover. The sworn return Is that tho
conviction was under the ordinance.
1t was void rs tho town had no power
to pass that orlin ance; where the act
provided for such a case the council of
Dover had no right to pass such an ordi-
nance.
Judge Wales-Why would an ordinance
made by tho Council of Dover be not legal
if it did not conflict with tho act
Mr.. RllstOn-BccauSc such an ordinance
is specifically laid down in the charter In
section II of that charter the ordinance
departs from all power. i
Mr.. Rdgloy maintained first that the
ordinance was not invalid; second, that 1t
was not under that ordinance that Stoph.
enson was tried and third, that the State
law covered the case.
Tho point is WAS the commitment
against the constitution of the United
States"
Mr.. Raston then cited case where tho
prisoner under habca5 corpus pro-
ccrdings was discharged because the Ordi-
nance was void under which he was de-
tanned in Jail.
Mr. Watson prcfaccd his argument by
stating that much misrepresentation had
been made Of the acts Of tho council Of the
town of Dover. The Single Takers have
refused to Oh y the law