The San Francisco call., 1898-01-07

Boardman has abandoned all hope, and realizes that Durrant will hang to- | morrow morning.
 But" says he. If by the merest pos s1Dliity my motion should be granted, the telegram announcing a stay of eX- ecution could be rushed to San Quentin in time to save him, provided the wires are working all right, for when 1t is o'clock here Gan hour after the court meets) it is only 10 o'clock at San Quentin.
 Are the Justices aware that you will make the motion for writ or haoeas corpus?" was asked.
 They are not" said he. flor I did not fully make up my mind to do it un- Ill after my conversation with Jus tlces Brewer and Harlan"
 Justice Brewer refused both of At torney Boardman's applications for in- terference in the case.
 Immediately after the adjournment or the Supreme Court at o'clock Jus tice Brewer repaired to the Attorney GeneraIs room, where he received MT. | Boardman and went over the case in detail with him. He first considered the application to sign a citation upon the appeal which was sought to be ta- Ken from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Californiadenying the ! issuance of a writ of habeaS corpus, the object being to perfect the appeal.
 The application was refused. and then MT. BOardman presented an ap- | pncation for a writ of error from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Cal lIornla upon the appeal from the last order of Judge Bahrs fixing the date TOT Durrant's execution, the object be- ing to secure a writ of supersedeas, | which would act as stay of proceed ings.
 In this matter MT. Boardman sought to nave the order denying this appeal considered as the final judgment of the supreme Court in the case.
 In denying the application upon the naoeas corpus proceedings, Justice Brewer said that under the construc- tlon by the court of the constitution. the federal courts had no power of limitation upon the right of appeal in napeas corpus proceedings, the ouinion
 being that such appeals should not be allowed where the appeal operates to suspend the power of the State author ities, and especially where the case has already been heard upon one appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding.
 with reference to the writ of error ne considered especially the represen- tatlon or MT. Boardman upon the claim lhdl as the constitution of California grants an appeal such an appeal be- comes vested right. The Justice con- sldered this point carefully, but said that as he could not accept the court S Judgment on this point as it's final ac- ton, he could not, therefore, see his way clear to interfere on this account. , Mir. Boardman pointed out that the probable execution of Durrant to-mor- row would have the practical effect of making the judgment final so far as it should bear upon his fortunes, but the Justice held to his original determina- tion in the matter.
 The interview lasted forty minutes. AS to the legality of a telegraphic stay of execution, one of the justices Of the Supreme Court said tonight:
 Tt is a matter that so far as I know
 has never been legally tested, but in , case of a telegraphic stay being sent
 properly attested by the clerk of the | court, l should think it would be most i unlikely that the warden in charge ot the execution would disregard it. In , case of such disregard the court might i very properly take cognizance of the matter afterward. but in this case il
 would be too late to benefit the pris- s oner. Owing to the peculiar urgency 1 of the case, I should say that every
 facility will be given the attorney fol a the condemned for a speedy hearing r whatever the action of the court may
 he D