The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-10-06

~ fate O. n. III. Harding, the alleged
A.rrpy. h trembling IL the haIence before
80 Jacobs ir the superior ecaet Hard
=. ever whom is hanging q sentence OF
~ vsars a. Wai.a Walla - attempting 70
..>eae the penalty OF tne law By habxas
,ersas proceedings. He alleges tina; Judge
Haors OF tie same courI. na1 40 power
!. sncox the sentence. Harding stood
-. wsen called UPON 20 plead 10 an In
a<nstssG cAargiTg hlfu win 6efraud.nk
- bsEx of Dexter Horton K Co, by
.raes Of bogus drafl for $3.50 TIE APP
.axafson for the wrs, was argeed yesterday
~ snksn Under Amusement.
~ argument In the case iax.ess all DAY.
strsxrsys John f. Dors and c. K Jenner
reenensing Harding and Prosecuting At
sruey McElroy and Deputy John f. Hart
sooaring for the state While II may
hsvs beer Interesting from a legal stand
sssf. being or a pureiy legal question. II
gss-raisasr dry 70 a iayman. although MFR.
FIRE eriiysnsd matters considerably by
rsssing dramatically 10 the Magma caarta
v,vssec from King John OF England BY hs
ts.ons al Rgnnymede centuries ago.
Nv that precious document, Dir. Dore tn
Afnss the court and the few assembled
n&csstors, the right TO q trial by jury mad
"A oven 90 every citizen accused Of crime.
q
x5ar his refusal 10 81 A. he was adiudgs ed
eaiffy out OF hsad AMI sentenced 10 the
psftennsTT without trial.
A. Tor Mr.. McEiroy and Mr.. Hart. they
Crued that. while no doubt II was true
"a. under ORD nary circumstances II would
iays been Incumbent upon Judge Moore
2 eufeY q plea Of not guilty for Harding
~ ny him in the usual manner. the lat
MS case was not an ordinary case. In
g5part Of their contention they cited an
IL xrrf all he ~,
ssntenes where a demurrer 30 an indictment
!. information Eas been oyerruled ard the
assensan; refuses 10 plead further Harding
ia aemurred ard his demurrer had been
essfFuied
Tss validity OF this old Law. which Hard
ms lawyers claim has beer superseded by
hle acts OF the legislature. ss the real
pcsns In issue In the case. 1: Judge Jacobs
Asids that IL does not apply. Harding VIII
IA Harding case has been referred 10 as
sasehef example OF the peculiar harmony
gsyaGang among the King county fusion
Cat Ia the matter OF the prosecution OF the
esrsons charged with frauds against the
rsnsy road fund, Judge Benson, The single
AZ Poprlist, and Judge Jacobs. the Silver
Republican, disagreed radically as Ia the
egurss 10 be pursued. and that The disagree
nent resulted Ia the calling OF grand jury
BIZ the former TO investigate eases which
ne latter had dismissed
In the Harding case Judge Jacobs ana
rs colleague, Judge Moore who II a DEM
scras. seem to be arrayed against each
ehsr. Judge Moore has passed upon the
ams point OF law now raised by Harding
on haheas corpus and decided IL contrary
20 the Istter Otherwise he would not have
PASSED sentence n the case.
YET when Harding appeals 70 Judge
Jacobs 10 decide the same point his appll-
casiea h entertained without reference to
the tart that. az Judge Moore'e friends de-
clare tire latter IS the Judge 10 whom the
application should have been made. In
consequences OF the alleged judicial discount
ssy Judge Mocrs's friends are inclined TO
eytleks Judge Jacobs.
| Another complication which may arise IN
sAs Harding case Il Is said. Is a possible
Indifference by the supreme court To that
tribunal Harding has appealed from Judge
N>ors's decision, raising the same question
.aveived IN the habeas corpus case. Some
peopie ara wondering what would be the
nesis should Harding SO free On haheas
corpus and the supreme court later sustain
SstEs Moore.
there IL some question whether the al
kxed sorger could he kept In the county
nc awaiting the decision OF the suoreme
agr after a Judge OF the superior court
Ase held his confinement Illegal. 1t will be
Esefal weeks before the case Is decided by
- Supreme court