The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-08
DURRANT WRIT DENIED.
Final Appeal to the Supreme Court
in Vain.

WASHINGTON, Jan. THE United
States supreme court at three minutes
past 1 o'clock today rendered its final
decision in the case Of William Henry
Theodore Durrant. refusing to inter-
fere. The matter was before the court
on an application made by Attorney
Louis P. Boardman, for leave to file
petition for writ Of habeas corpus
in Durrants behalf. This application
was only made by Mr. Boardman after
he had exhausted all other resources
in the shape of individual members of
the court. After seeing Justices Brew
err and Harlan. last night, he called
upon Justice Shiras before the conven-'
ing of court, but met with the same de-
NAL which he received at the hands
of the other justices. He saw Mr..
Shiras at his residence and to him pre-
scented his petition for appeal from the
decision of the California courts in
brief form. Without going into the
case, Justice Shiras denied the appli-
cation in both cases.
After this proceeding, Mr.. Boardman
had no time left to see other 1ndivid-
ual justices and he repaired to the
court room with the intention of pre-
senting the matter to the congregated
court He presented a personal petit
ton in his own name, in Durrant's be-
half, rather than to appear as the lat
ters counsel. To appear in the latter
role, it would have been necessary for
him to secure admission to the bar,
and that proceeding would have re-
quired time, which Mr.. Boardman felt
that he could i'll afford to lose. In pre-
senting the petition, he had the undi-
vided attention of the entire court, all
the members of which were present, eX-
cept Justice Brewer and of an audience
which filled all the seats and the stand
ing room in the portion of the hall out
side of the bar.
NO TIME LOST.
Mr. Boardman lost no time in pre-
senting his prayer to the court. Two
or three persons were admitted to prac-
tice. and the words Of the oath admin
istered to them scarcely had fallen
from the lips of Clerk McKenny, when
the California attorney moved swiftly
from the rear of the bar enclosure to
the front, where he calmly took his po-
sition and began his presentation of
the matter in hand. Mr. Boardman be-
gan his address to the court by saying
that he realized that his method Of pre-
senting the case as a personal petition
Of his own, was outside Of the usual
line Of habeas corpus proceedings in
this court. He briefly outlined the fact
that Durrant was under sentence of
death on the charge of murder in Cali
fornia, and that the execution had been
set to take place today.
II appear" he said, '1n person, in
behalf of my client, who is confined in
prison in California, and who, because
of this restraint is unable to make pc
tition in his own behalf" He then pro-
ceeded to read his petition at length.
presenting the points which he had
hitherto presented to the individual
justices of the court, making applica-
ton for an appeal from the decision Of
the United States circuit court for the
northern district of California, and for
a writ of error to the state supreme
court of California, with the hope of
thus getting the matter into this court
and securing stay of proceedings in
the matter of Durrant's execution by
obtaining an order for a writ of habeas
corpus He also set forth his action
in presenting the matter to Justice
Brewer and other members of the court
In their individual character.
AS he proceeded, Mr.. Boardman was
frequently questioned by members of
the court, whose questions were evil
IDENTIFY made for the purpose of eluci-
dating the points Mr.. Boardman sought
to present. He said in reply to uues-
ton from Justice Harlan, that the main
point in his application for an appeal
III the habeas corpus proceedings be-
fore the California federal court was
his reliance on his constitutional right
OF appeal, which he claimed he had
been denied by the refusal of the cir
cult court to grant this appeal.
RIGHTS DENIED.
He claimed that the state court by
proceeding to sentence Durrant to ex-
ecution on Nov. 8 last. before the man
date of the United States supreme
court refusing to grant a writ Of
habeas corpus had been received, vio-
lated the constitution and laws Of the
United States, and acted as a denial of
the rights of his client.
Taking up the proceeding in the Cali
fornia supreme court, Mr.. Boardman
detailed some Of the errors alleged to
have been committed by the court,
reading minutely from the minutes of
the court, closing with the presenta-
ton of the claim that the decision of
the federal supreme court in the Jugiro
case left no question of the right to
prosecute an appeal in a similar case.
1t was then that Chief Justice Fuller
uttered q sentence which evidently
forecasted the decision Of the court
I'VE decided in that case" said the