The San Francisco call., 1897-11-26
THE EDGAR CONTEMPT CASE.


of the San Diego Superior Court against John I. Eogar'
Deputy Warden of San Quentin prison, ought to resutn
something being determine the question at issue zap
Edgar appealed the Supreme Court from the order
adudgng him guilty of contempt in falling to execute Mur
dere Ebanks or October ordered by Judge Torrance MS
defense being that nction Of the death penalty was
stayed by Ebans appeal Federal court order denying
him writ of habeas corpus Ebanks is of the numerous
colony of murderers confined at San Quentin who have post
poned their departure hence with applications for Federal Writs
of habeas corpus.
Though it is not exactly clear how decision OF the State
Supreme Court ectuaIy settle question Involving the
Jurisdiction or practice of United States COURT is perfectly
plain that if the fine imposed Edgar sustained prison
wardens hereafter will be in contempt of State courts when
they fail for any execute their sentences
doubtful however whether Judge orrance will be upheld by
the State Supreme Court That tribunal will scarcely declare
that prison officers must execute death sentences regaoeSs OF
the process of the courts 1t will rather incline to the conser
vave opinion that 1t the duty of those officials to obey all
legal orders, no matter whence they come.
Nevertheless there little question that Judge orrence
in Edgar case, has taken correct view of the law The
habeas corpus device for defeating the execution death
transparent suberfuge Over and over again the
Federal courts have denounced it. The writ is designed
to enable court to inquire into the cause of mans I'M
prisonmen No discharge take place under unless the
Judgment of detention is nully. This has been decided
so many times by the of last resort in State and
lawyer therefore, who appeals to the Federal courts in behalf
of convicted murderer and who with writ of habeas
corpus attempts review the acton of the State tribunals in
the case guilty oense which ought to be punished
by dsbarment.
In the Ebanks case, in that of Durrant there was
agrant violation the legal deeencies When Federal
tons are raised by the record the proper method
lawyer knows of getting before the United States
Supreme Court writ of from the State Supreme
Court In this only the former tribunal be made
to consider the points.
In the case Ebanks alleged that he had been de-
equal protection of the laws and had been convicted
without due process of law-two Federal constitution ques
tions There way Judge Torrance in his
opinion the Edgar contempt proceeding, for getting these
points before the United States courts-namey by writ of
error Yet the attorney for Ebanks applied for habea
upon record which showed erro and, his application
being denied, appead-a which plainly showed that
his object was merely to postpone the execution of the
| derer.
superficial view of the subec-and such subject can
only be viewed specifically within the short compass OF
newspaper artcewoud indicate that the real remedy
for the abuse of the writ of habeas corpus in murder cases lies
in of Congress- The trouble is caused by mscon-
sucon of sections of the Revised Statutes and the
judiciary act of ISoI 1t ought to be easy for Congress to
law which oud restrict appeals from State courts to
the Supreme Court the United States wrts of In
Decd unless the laws against murder in the States to be-
mpoent of this character will have to be
enacted The action Judge Torrance in the Edgar
result bringing learning the subject, but is doubt
fu whether will effect change in the pracce of attorneys
who at all hazards save the necs of their clients in the
of prison obeyng all process which relieves
them of the responsibility Of putting men to death.