The herald., 1896-02-25

6alO 10 Dc Wltnln It's corporate umltgs and
under its municipal authority.
That the confinement of said Chavez is
in violation of the fifth and fourteenth
amendments of the constitution of the
United States and without authority of
law.
That Chavez, by being held in said con-
fnement, Is unable to make this petition,
and it is made by your petitioner under
his express authority and in his behalf
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that a
writ Oh habeas corpus may be granted, di-
rected to the said Thomas Gates, COM
manding him 10 have the body of the said
Evaristo Chavez before your honor, at a
time and place to be therein specified, to
do and receive what shall then and there
be considered by your honor concerning
the said Chavez, together with the cause
and time of his detention. and said writ,
and that said Evaristo Chavez may be re-
stored of his liberty. CALVERT WILSON.
Judge Wellborn, after taking the matter
for some time under advisement, yester-
day delivered an opinion from the bench,
denying the application, not upon its mer
it's, but upon the technical objection to the
petition that if Chavez were held in the
manner he claims, still as his confinement
is upon ground claimed by Arizona, ard
upon which Arizona is exercising jurisdic-
ton, 1t is, as far as Chavez is concerned, a
part of Arizona, and he cannot by habeas
the land is really in California. The de-
cision is here given in full as follows:
THEoPINIoN
In the matter of the application of Cal
vert Wilson, on behalf of Evaristo Chavez,
for writ of habeas corpus-Opinion of the
court:
This is petition for writ of habeas
corpus by Calvert Wilson, OH behalf of
81 f<II
That the latter is unlawfully restrained of
his liberty by one Thomas Gates, under a
judgment of the district court of the Fourth
judicial district of the territory of Arizona,
territorial court having the same
Jurisdiction as Is vested in the
circuit and district courts of the
United States, sentencing said prisoner
territorial prison at Yuma, Arizona terri
tory," and that said Gates is the superin-
tendent of the prison where said Chavez ia
confined, and that said prison is the only
territorial prison of Arizona, and was es-
tablished by section 2417, revised statutes
of Yuma, county of Yuma, said territory; /;
that said prison in point of fact is not
within the territory OF Arizona. but is about
500 feet, more or less, from the boundary
line of said territory and within the state
of California.
There is no allegation, however, that
California is now or has ever made any
claim whatever to the land upon which the
prison stands. but, on the contrary, Ari-
zona is now in possession of said prison
and exercises authority over the same, ami
has no other territorial prison, and said
prison is claimed and owned by the town
of Yuma to be within its corporate limits
and subject to its municipal authority.
The sole ground upon which the petition
er asserts illeuality in the aforesaid inn
prisonment is the alleged fact that said
prison is outside of the territory of Arizona.
Whether or not, from mistake or other
cause, Arizona has built its prison few
hundred feet outside the boundaries of the
territory and within the state of California
is an inquiry upon which the court, in
this proceeding, ought not to enter. That
part of the sentence indicating the place of
imprisonment, to-Wit, 1.-THE territorial pris-
on at Yuma, Arizona territory" is merely
descriptive of and intended to identify the
prison, and the petition shows beyond
confined is the prison designated in the
sentence. Even we're the state of Caiifor-
mia asserting claim to the land on which
the prison stands 1t would then simply be
question of disputed boundary and, in a
writ of habeas corpus, the court would not
undertake to determine where the exact
line is situate, but finding Arizona in pos
session of and exercising authority over
the disputed ground. and using the same
as its prison, would assume, for the pur-
poses of this application, tho, locality in
question to be within the limits Of said ter
ritory. ... -
said prison to be within the state OF Cali
fornia, there is still another reason why
the writ of habeas corpus should not be is
sued on this applications. There is no law
requiring prisoners convicted and SEN
fenced to imprisonment by the courts of
Arizona to be confined within the territory
but, on the contrary, it is expressly pro.
vided in paragraph ten of the act OF con-
gress entitled IAN act making appropria-
tons for the sundry civil expenses of the
government for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1851, and for other purposes, approved
June l6, 1880" That the legislative as
semblies of the several territories Of the
United States may make such provision for
the care and custody of such persons as
may be convicted of crime under the laws
of such territory as they shall deem proper.
and for that purpose may authorize and
contract for the care and custody of such
convicts in any other state and territory,
and provide that such person or persons
may be sentenced TO confinement accord
ingly in such other territory or state, and
provide that such person or persons may
be sentenced to confinement accordingly
in such other territory or state, and all eX-
listing legislative enactments of any of the
territories for that purpose are hereby le-
galized." q Supp. Il. s., p. 290.)
The writ is denied.
OLIN WELLBoRN, District Judge.
DOES NOT STOP THE MATTER
The decision of Judge Wellborn does
not stop the matter, however, as Chavez's
attorney has, in expectation of this de-
cision, prepared a similar one for presen
tation to Circuit Judge Ross, and the ques-
tons involved will in any event, which
ever way the decision may be. endered by
Circuit Judge Ross, be ultimately and as
rapidly as possible carried to the United
States supreme court.
The result of decision favorable to
Chavez would be unless Arizona provided
another prison in some other part of her
territery--to make " wholesale prison de-
livery upon similar applic atoms of the
other convicts. Besides the Jail delivery,
and of equal Importance to Arizona, would
be the loss to her of her water frontage on
the Colorado river south of its junction
with the ella river.
California-and San Diego county, par
ticuIarly-would be the gamer, by deci-
of the town of Yuma, which is situated on
this same narrow strip of land between the
boundary line and the Colorado river, and
would be further enriched by the addition
of the greater part of the fertile bottom
lands on the east bank of the Colorado
river south of Yuma ahd covered by what
is known as the AlRodones grant. -;
The placing of this strip of land in Cali
- <lok4 ~ =