The herald., 1896-08-29
THAT DISPUTED BOUNDARY
Associate Justice Field on the
Chavez Case
HIS VIEWS ON THE MATTER
The Disputed Strip Between Arizona
and Califcrnia
The Hnbeas Corpus Proceedings That May Re-
suit In the Settlement of
Mooted Question

The habeas corpus application Of
Evaristo Chavez, which was before
Judge Wellborn of the district court and
before Judge Ross of the circuit court
of the United States a few months ago.
ard 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 Uni
ted States Stephen J. Field.
1t will be remembered that in this
application Chavez claimed that he was
being illegally held In the state of Cali
fornia, although at the time he was
serving a two-years sentence in the
Arizona penitentiary a Yuma. Ariz., for
selling liquor to Indians. Chavez based
his claim of illegal confinement
upon the alleged fact that the
strip of land upon which the penitenti-
sry stood and upon which also is locat-
I'd about half of the town of Yuma, by
virtue of the provisions of the treaties
trith Mexico, article V. of the constitu-
tion of the state of California, and tho
acts of congress establishing the ter
ritory of Arizona and its boundaries,
was in thu state of California, and he
could not therefore be held upon an
Arizona commitment. Judges Ross and
Wellborn decided that Chavez was be-
Ing held upon disputed territory by vir-
tue of valid Arizona commitn INT, upon
regular conviction of the offense
charged. and that he would not be al
lowed to raise a question of disputed
boundary upon habeas corpus, and de-
MED his application.
Chavez, through his attorney, Cal
vert Wilson of this city, took the matter
up on habeas corpus before Associate
Justice Field, who has just given an
opinion upon the application. Justice
Fields opinion is interesting upon the
question as to what should eventually
become of Chavez and the remaining
convicts now confined in the Arizona
penitentiary in Yuma, We're such an
application as this one of Chavez's
granted.
JusticeField says, s,among other things:
1T seems that the matter has been
before Judge Ross. If it was before him
when holding the circuit court then the
proper and adequate remedy is by ap-
peal. If it was before him in chambers,
then Chavez is at liberty to apply to
some other federal judge. 1t is imposs-
bic Tor me. consistent with my numer-
Gus duties mere, to attend myself to this
class of matters. l may say, however,
that, were TO grant the writ and should
come to the conclusion that your client
could not be tield in the state of Califor-
mia, l would not discharge him abso-
lutely,bu before doing so would give no
tice to the proper authorities of Arizo-
IA so that he could be taken and con-
fined in Arizona in execution of the
Judgment of the court. l return the pa
pers in the case. that Chavez may take
such further action in the premises as
is advisable
I'M 1cra V;AI
opinion foreshadow just what his de-
cision would be as to Chavez being illeg-
ally confined in California, yet from it's
tenor 1T can be seen that he does not
consider the application for the writ
groundless or wanting in merit: for if
it were so, the writ would simply have
been denied upon the facts appearing up
on the face of TIE petition, which was
the position taken by Judges Ross and
Wellborn.
So far as this ending the matter it
is learned that the case will now be
carried upon an appeal from the decis-
ion of Judge Ross to the supreme court
of the United States and its merits will
thus be passed upon by the entire court.
A decision in this case upon its merits
will not only settle the question of the
true boundary line between California
and Arizona, whether it is the channel
of the Colorado river or a straight line
drawn from the middle of the river Gila
where it unites with the Colorado, due
westerly to the Pacific ocean, and cut
ting off a narrow strip of land (upon
which stands the Arizona penitentiary).
between this line and the Colorado river;
but it will determine the fact as to
whether or not Arizonas penitentiary
is in Arizona or California, and also will
indicate the legality or illegality of the
confinement of the rest of the Arizona
conVicts.
There have been several efforts in the
last few years by the residents of North
ern Arizona to pass a law through the
legislature of that territory removing
the penitentiary from Yuma to Prescott,
AriZ., not only upon the ground of the
uncertainty of the present location of
the Arizona prison, but upon the more
certain objection of it's proximity to the
Mexican border and the Colorado river,
location offering peculiar advantages
for escape to the sister republic. The
prison now stands upon the east bank
of the Colorado river. 1t will thus be
seen that there is decided political as
pect to the question from an Arizona
standpoint, and a successful issue of the
Chavez case would operate as posi-
tive victory for Northern Arizona as
against Yuma county and Southern Ar 4
iona in necessitating the removal Of
the prison to Prescott.
The loss to Yuma would be serious
one The town now subsists largely
upon the money spent in maintaining
the prison; thus Yuma would lose not
only that source of constant revenue.
but would also be deprived of it's city
water frontage on the Colorado. as the
boundary line would then run between
the greater portion OF the town and the
river, putting all of the river south of
where it unites with the ella in Cali
fornia. The outcome of the case will
be watched for by many, not only on
account of it's interesting legal aspects,
but from the fact that it will affect so
many and such varied interests in the
territory.
,.ex...ss ,x,S . ~y>