The San Francisco call., 1897-03-20

Supreme Courts decision, holding the
prisoners amenable to an outraged Senate.
Hon. w. w. Morrow, sitting in the Fed
eral District Court, yesterday discharged
the writ of habeas corpus which was
granted last Thursday and renanded the
petitioners into the custody of the Sheriff
of Sacramento County, but at the same
time admitted them to bail in the sum of
$1,000 pending their appeal to the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals or If nee
essary to the Supreme Court OF the United
States, on a writ of error.
1t was at once pointed out by District
Attorney ]. c. Jones of Sacramento, who
represented the Sheriff in these proceed
ings, that the petition ers would never
suffer the punishment for their contem pit
under the courts decision, inasmuch as
the Legislature would adjourn tomorrow
Saturday. II admit" he added, "that
this is outside the reCord.'
1T is unavoidable" was the courts
brief comment. This is the law and not
the fault of the court
The argument on the part of counsel
occupied the entire afternoon, De putty
Attorney General Anderson representing
the Senate, G. w. McEnerney and Charles
]. Heggarty the petitioners and District
Attorney Jones Of Sacramento the Sheriff.
Mr.. McEnerney's contention in support of
the writ was that the action of the Senate
in imprisoning the petitioners was vio-
lation of the constitution of the United
States, the fourteenth amendment of
which declared the immunity of citizens
from arrest and imprisonment without
due process of law; that the petitioners
had been imprisoned because they main
tanned the right to rely upon that immu-
nifty which, Mr.. McEnerney held, it was
the duty of this court to construe in ex-
actly the same manner as the United
States Supreme Court had construed an
identical provision of the constitution.
He denied that the commitment was
process of law, and described it as null
and void because it neglected to specify
the exact nature of the contempt, nor did
it reproduce the questions which it al
legged the petitioners had declined to an
swer. The Sheriff was therefore left with
out proper directions as TO wnen he should
release his prisoners, and thereby incurred
the risk OF illegal detention.
The Deputy Attorney General and Dis
trict Attorney Jones combined to mega
tive Mr.. McEnerney's argument. The
former maintained 1t was universal rule
of the Federal courts that when the high
est State court had pass d upon questions
of law within its jurisdiction. such de-
cision should be binding upon the Federal
courts. The only question that the Federal
court could possibly entertain with re-
spect to this writ was whether or not the
laws OF the State under which the State
courts had held that he Senate had iuris-
diction were in conflict with these consti-
tutionaI provisions.
He also contended that If the State
courts had not adjudicated the matter
under the settled rule OF habsas corpus,
this court in entertaining the writ could
consider only two questions: First, the
Jurisdiction of the Senate to act, and
second, the validity of the process upon
its face. The irregularity OF the commit
meat, to which Mr.. McEnerney referred,
could not vitiate the authority OF that
document. The full report OF the ques-
tions asked by the committee could be
found among the records OF the Senate.
Judge Morrow in rendering his decision,
which included the citation of hume rous
authorities, held that when matters OF
this nature had been determined by the
State courts, the proper recourse Of the
petitioners was to appeal to the Supreme
| Court of the United States.
ut is not proper proceeding" said be,
| ''for the District or Circuit courts to r,-
| view cases occurring In the State courts
| where those courts have jurisdiction.
! This being the case, without going into
the merits OF the question or considering
| the objections raised, think 1 am au-
] thorized under the decisions have quoted