The San Francisco call., 1898-12-12
JUDGE COOKS
 RIGHT ID TRY
 MRS. BOTK|N Legal Fraternity Vital- ly Interested.
HARPER'S MOVE DISCUSSED
OPINIONS ON PROBABLE ACTION
 OF SUPREME COURT.
Several Prominent Lawyers Believe the Application for a Writ of Prohibition Will Be
 Denied.

In the opinion of some of the most prominent members of the legal profes- sion in this city the trial of Mrs. Cordelia Botkin. on the charge of having murdered Mrs. Deane and Mrs. Cunning, will pro- ceed without interference on the part of the Supreme Court In other words the application of w. L. Harper, through his attorney, Louis P. Boardman, for writ of prohibition to stop further proceedings in Judge Cooks court, is expected to be denied
 Harper's action has aroused the greatest interest among lawyers as well as citi- zens generally, and the opinion of the Su- preme Court Is anxiously awaited. What ever 1t may be, 1t is felt that 1t will go a long way toward definitely deciding a point that is of vital interest to every State in the Union.
 In view of the decision of that court in denying the extradition of Mrs. Botkin to Delaware, 1t is the general belief that the Supreme Court will hold that the Cali fornia courts have full Jurisdiction to try her for the crime, and that the proceed ings pending before Judge Cook are en- tirely legal.
 If, on the other hand, the decision should be to the contrary, and the writ granted, 1t will show that the State and Federal laws are in need of revision in order that similar crimes can be properly punished.
 General W. H. L. Barnes thinks the su- preme Court will make short work of tur. Harpers petition when the matter comes before that tribunal this morning. T be- lieve this petition to be utterly futne." reason that Mrs. Botkin has been regular ly brought before the trial court on an indictment charging. her with murder, therefore. Judge Cook has full jurisdiction to proceed with the trial in the absence of any motion on the part of the defend- ants attorneys to quash the indictment, or to dismiss the charges.
 ''The granting of a writ of prohibition now by the Supreme Court would lead to endless confusion hereafter in the trial of all criminal cases. A citizen might just as well apply for such writ in any trial on the ground that the defense had offered evidence that would tend to establish his or her innocence and that the trial Judge, having ruled such evidence out, the trial was being needlessly prolonged at great expense to the people.
 '7At the conclusion of Mrs. Botkin's 8 attorneys may bring up the question of Jurisdiction but until then I am of the opinion that the Supreme. Court will oe- cline to pass xpon N2 it and that t,t 1t VIII make 1t comes up for hearing in the morning. Personally, am inclined to the belief that whfn w be the deeded eSdd that hs p0n ta court has full jurisdiction to try Mrs. Botkin. There is a parallel case in the North Carolina statutes, where a man, standing on Tennessee soil. fired across the border line, killing man in North Carolina The question of the Jurisdiction of a North Carolina court trying him for the murder was raised and it was decided that as he was in Tennessee at the time he planned and executed the crime, the North Carolina courts had no Jurisdiction Under that ruling Mrs. Botkfn can be tried here."
 Ex-Attorney General A. L. Hart said: "I do not see how the Supreme Court can entertain this motion for a writ of pro- hibition. No crime can be committed with in the boundaries of the United States that Is not amenable to some court of jus tice. The Supreme Court, in refusing to extradite Mrs. Botkin, has decIared that her offense, If she is guilty of the crime charged against her, is not under the Jurisdiction of the Delaware courts, and in view of that decision l do not see how 1t can decide that she Is not subject to trial here. I have not looked into this matter carefully, and I am aware that there is high legal opinion to the contrary, but 1t is my belief that if Mrs. Botkin committed this crime at all the crime was committed in this State, and that Judge Cook has full jurisdiction to try her. In any event I do not look for the Superior Court to definitely decide this point in ad- vance of some action on the part of Mrs. Botkin's lawyers"
 "Of-hand, I would say the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this matter" Judge Murphy said last night "It is not ters of fact. The indictment under