The San Francisco call., 1898-09-09

therefore except to put in legal form the | evidence that has already been gathered. extradition hearing before Governor Budd. This proceeding has been set for | next Tuesday morning, and will be held at the Palace Hotel.
 Another saleswoman. employed by George Haas, made statement yester- day to the police. She is Miss Sylvia
 Heney, who works as an 'e1tra" clerk and on occasions at night. The authori- ties are now convinced that 1t was she and not Miss Emma Herber who sold
 the box of candy that was subsequently poisoned. Both Miss Herber and Miss Heney sold boxes of candy answering the description of that which plays so prom inent part in the Dover tragedy. Miss Herber told her story to the police, and Mrs. Botkin as the purchaser of the box.
 After this failure Miss Heney was
 brought forward. The young lady was summoned to police headquarters last night and made a complete statement. She says that on the afternoon of July 31 she sold the box of candy which was sent
 of the sale. and the actions of the pur- | chaser Is identical with that made by Miss Herber and already published in The Call Miss Heney can go further than
 Miss Herber, however, as she explains why she identifies the box.
 The woman who made the purchase had asked for a special box. With a desire
 to sell a faded box and please her em- ployer Miss Heney chose that which she identified yesterday. An attempt was then made to have the girl identify Mrs. Botkin. The young lady was taken to the window of the matron's room but Mrs. Botkin retired from view. Another effort
 will be made at the earliest possible mo- ment.
 | The police have also received the report of T. Kytka, the handwriting expert who is employed by the Police Department. | Botkin undoubtedly wrote the anonymous letters to Mrs. Cunning and also the ad-
 dress on the box of poisoned candy. This decision, coming from an employe Of the Police Department, was not unexpected. An interesting legal question has arisen | in the case of Mrs. Cordelia Botkin which | will probably puzzle not only the lawyers
 engaged on both sides but also Chief Lees,
 who claims to be the leading counsel for 1 the State.
 The constitutions of the State of Califor-
 mia and Delaware, as well as the constitu- | tion of the United States, provide that in
 criminal prosecutions the accused shall be
 or her in open court. The principle enun- ciated Is as old as the Magma Charta It 1 was. formulated for the purpose of pro- | tecting persons accused of crime against | secret trials and the conspiraces of those | in power, who, in monarchical govern
 ments, arbitrarily made way with their In the Botkin case the question is now
 asked: How can the alleged poisoner be
 confronted with the witnesses against her
 If she Is taken to Delaware or how can
 the same privilege be extended to. her +
 she is tried here? There is no process by | which the California witnesses can be
 and there is no process by which those Tn
 that State can be brought here.
 The constitutions of both States, as well
 as the Federal organic law, guarantee
 Mrs Botkin the same privilege employed | by the prosecution. That is, she is en-
 titled to have witnesses In her. defense 1 that a person in Delaware refused to at
 tend when subpenaed in her behalf she
 could not constftutionally be convicted,
 and If she were extradited on Governor
 Budd's warrant and her California wit
 nesses should refuse to go to Delaware,
 she could not be convicted there. | "The fact of this matter is," said an, at | torney who has studied the case, !" Mrs. | Botkin's situation is an anomaly In the
 law. Even if she were a fugitive from
 justice and could be extradited under the
 witnesses could be taken to Delaware
 against her will. The common law pro-
 vided that when crime was committed
 partly in one and partly in another juris-
 diction 1t might be tried in either, but it
 was always assumed that the trial would
 take place where the witnesses were To-
 cated.
 If Mrs. Botkin actually was a fugitive | from justice from Delaware the witnesses
 for and against her. would probably be
 in the latter State; but as she Is not in I the legal sense fugitive-never having i been in Delaware-it happens that both | the witnesses for and against her are | mostly here.
 II have no idea how the prosecution in | the Botkin case will get over this diff
 culty. Dunning Is one of the important | witnesses for the State. It will probably | be difficult to make out a case against | her without his evidence. Suppose he | should refuse to come to California in | case she is tried here, For go to Delaware
 in case she is extradited know of no
 way in which he could be compelled to | attend either Jurisdiction"
 The point here involved is sooner or | later bound to puzzle the lawyers on hot h | sides. Indeed. it may cut an important figure in the argument before Governor | Budd on Tuesday next.