The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-24
TREASURY OFFICIALS FREE.
Judge Hanford Liberates Lewis,
Gardner and Cullom.
NO CRIMINAL INTENT SHOWN.
The Court Says thar the Government
Prosecution by state Authorities
More Letters discriminating For
mer officials introduced fn Evil
denee-Nr. Lewis Has Gone East.

Where there Is 70 ground for a GRIM
snal charge under ths laws O. Washington.
tie Federal court viii protect Federal or
GERS against prosecution. FOR acts done un-
der color OF authority IN the performances
% official duty.
The statement that these men car De
cent 70 the state peniienfizry under con-
victlon fer robbery f. an absurdlty-"
In these words. delivered IN the course
OF his decision IN the application Of Special
Employe Lewis and Interpreter Gardner
for writ OF habeaR corpus. Judge Han
ford yesterday ordered the release Of the
officers from the custody Of the state and
allowed them % 20 without fear o. being
inferfeFed With by the state officers. The
order granting the writ o. habeas corpus
viii be issued Monday. requiring the dep
ufv sheriff or jefferson county 20 release
Gardner and Lewis In fact. both men
wili be our OF tae city when the order "a
iaaued. Mr.. Lewis having gore East last
nlgnt. and Mr Gardner being NOS on his
way 70 California.
The decision By Judge Hanf3rd was rem
aered at the Close % Emo bearing on the
Application Of Gardner and Lewis for a
writ % habeas corpus. Both had been ar
rested on the charge o. robbery. preferred
~ Wee Gee. eK-C0llectoF Saunders former
Chinese Interpreter wao had himself been
under ere OF the government on the charge
~ eouspiTinE 10 lapd Chinese immigrants
sn violation q the exclusion act. Judge
Hrinker. for the government. intimated
GGrin- the trial that Yee Gee him Elf was
sDt really the prosecutor tn the case-that
white men who we're Interested IN ths
-rnIter aere behind q 10 one % the men
"a - lad Judge
Efluker said thst the prosecution OF Gard
uC- and Le~ls w3Hld reflect gpon certain
ex-offcials AZ Port Townsend.
Judge HanfoTds opinion IL part Is as
fellows
I'm deciding this case do not mean 10
Say tlat the warrant Which MIR. kiefer Is
ssd was a iawful warrant or that the
g 3eeedings under lt Mere well advised or
- 1por proceedings ] co not mean TO say
taaf tbs petitioners were lawfully dis
charging their official duties in what they
Ia my opinion The warrant itself VAS
Euproviden!iy and erfoueously issued. and
flu proceedings We're all ll-adyised and
conducted with bad judgment. but the fact
ls that the officer who issued this warrant
Is an officer Of the United States, and given
authority 10 issue warrants IN proper
eases.
state md National Government.
'''rheSe petitioners were IN the service OF
the government % the United States and
pertained 10 their duties as public officers.
Now. where an officer from an excess Of
zeal OF misintormatlon or lack Of good
judgment executes what ne c0nceiyes to
DC The duties OF his office. but sn an i'm
proper manner. even where he violates pri-
vate rights for bis conduct ne Is answer
able 20 the government or the power un-
der whose appointment ne ~ acting. and
he may lay himself liable to answer 70
private individual who Is injured or OPP
pressed by his action. but he does not lay
himself liable 10 answer 10 the criminal
process OF a different government or
different sovereignty. Wlsh the complex
system OF government We have. state and
national, We would be tn an unstable con
dition II the state government can put In
force its criminal laws TO discipline United
States officers for the manner in which
they discharge their duties; or the other
way. u the government OF the United
states should prosecute crminaliy sherins
and ministerial officers and justices OF The
2 ace, and superior courts Tor errors or
Judgment or ignorance or laundering dis
charge Of their duties Il wolld bring on a
condition Of chaos IN a short time.
Now, the facts. Which are undisputed Ia
this case, sre that these petitioners were
IT. the service OF the United States under
different appointments and that In going
wiki the deputy marshal who had this
warrant issued 10 him. they went by re-
quest and With his sanction. and all thai
they did was Ia az OFFICIAL character. With
out any private or Individual malice. and
without any felonious Intent 10 commit q
robbery or commit a felony % any kind
They did according 20 the evidence things
which Ia my Judgment they had no right
&C. DO, bar 10 does nor constitute a crime
aeslust the safe II Washington. II they
were guilty % robbery. Judge kiefer IS a
rotber ana Deputy Msrshal Mclaughlin
g q rohber and Mr. Cullen j. a robber
New the bare statement that these men
can oe sent 10 The pcuiteudary under con-
viclion for robbery shows that the idea IS
an ah0irdiiy.
Therefore IA order 90 decide the ques-
tisn lr The case now before the court. IS is
NaftheF the officers acted wa0toaly AMI
WIKI criminal Intent. OF whether insofar
as iaeir acts may b. regarded as wrongful
they were nleTc errors OF judgment.
Now, IN these cases hy an tac test ru oQE
10 ls proved clearly that there was no fee
oai0us intent So the minds % Mr lewis
Hr Mr. Gardner and Jhe charge ~ robbery
cannot be maintained simply or the
ground thst 3sfee-s could DE pointed out
L7urAtn ana t9st she officers acted in
excess ~ hair Jurisdiction II - ny op.0-
ior tuHt thry weut beVou8 the line 70
which fHT warrant authorized chem 20 ~.
a0s erieH suto matters which The warren re
d.d not authorize them 90 pry into All
tria i@ plain enough. Aut t2c teionious
necessary intent 20 make robbers ~ them
81 entirely aacking Thes- are ms views
nf the ease 1Hd an order wtU &c made
ascaarEinE che petitioners"
Letters IN Evidence.
Several letters ana Eed 70 have been
written by Nee Gee to BITS Chlueee CORES
ronteHts in Victoria and san Francisco
were introduced lu evidence by the GOV
q a n q q a - q