The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-01-08
THE LAST APPEAL.
Eleventh Hour Proceedings Before
Federal Supreme Court.


States supreme court, at three minute.
past l o'clock today, rendered its fina
decision N the case of Theodore Dur
rant, refusing to interfere. The matte
| was before the court on an appHcatio-
raade by Attorney L. p. Boardman 70
leave TO file a petition for a writ O.
habeaS corpus in Durrant'S behalf
This application was only made by Mi
! Bcardman, as he had exhausted a.
ether resources in the shape of indi
vidual members Of the court Afte.
seeing Justices Broker and Harlan las
night, he called upon Justice Shiras
/ before the converting of court, but me
with the same denial which he had re
ceived at the hands of the other jus
tees. He saw Mr.. Shiras at his resi-
dence, and to him presented his appl-
cation for an appeal from the decisions
| Of the California courts in a brief form
| Justice Shiras denied the application.
in both cases. After this proceeding
| Mr.. Boardman had no time left to See
! other individual justices. and he re-
/ paired TO the court room with the il
| tention of presenting the matter to II
! cCngregated court He presented a
personal petition in his own name il
! Durrants behalf, rather than to ap-
pear as the latters counsel. To appear
in the latter role, ii would have beer
necessary Cor him to secure admission
to the bar, and that proceeding would
have required time. which Mr.. Board
man felt he could ill-afford to lose. In
presenting the petition, he had the I'M
divided attention of the entire court, all
the members Of which were present
except Justice Brewer, and of an audi
ence which filled all the seats and the
standing room in the portion of the han
outside of the bar.
Mr.. Boardmar lost no time in pre-
senticg his prayer To the court Two
or three persons were admitted to prac-
tice and the words of the oath admia-
istered TO them had scarcely fallen
from the lips OF Clerk McKenney when
the California attorney moved from the
rear OF the bar to the front, where he
calmly took his position and began his
presentation of the matter in hand
He began by saying that he realized
that his method of presenting the case
as personal petition of his own was
outside of the usual line of habeas cor
pus proceedings in this court He
briefly outlined the fact that Durrant
was under sentence of death, on the
charge of murder, IN California, and
his execution was set for today.
I appear" he said, lin person in be-
half of my client, who is confined in
prison in California, and who, because
of this restraint, is unable to make pc
tition on his own behalf"
He then proceeded to read his petit
ton at length, presenting the points
which he had hitherto presented to the
individual justices. making applica-
ton for an appeal from the decision of
the United States circuit court for the
northern district of California, and for
writ of error to the state supreme
court of California, with hope of thus
getting the matter into this court and
securing a stay of proceedings in the
matter of Durrant's execution by OBJ
tanning an order for a writ of haheas
corpus He also set forth his action in
presenting the matter to Justice Brew
er 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 a uues-
ton from Justice Harlan that the main
point in his application for an appeal
in the habeas corpus proceedings be-
fore the California federal court was
his reliance on his constitutional right
of appeal, which, he claimed, had been
denied by the refusal of the circuit
court to grant this appeal He also
claimed that the state court, by pro-
ceeding to sentence Durrant to execu-
tlOI NOV. o last, "DGlOIG the mandate OF
the United States supreme court refus-
ing to grant a writ of habeas corpus
had been received, violated the consti-
tuition and laws of the United States
and acted as a denial of the rights of
his client. Taking up the proceedings
in the California state supreme court,
Mr.. Boardman detailed some of the err
rors alleged to have been committed
by the court, reading alternately from
the minutes of fha -fo 1.
a presentation of a claim that the de-
cision of the federal supreme court in
the Jugiro case left no question of the
right to prosecute an appeal in a sim
liar case.
1t was then that Chief Justice Fuller
uttered sentence which evidently
forecast the decision of the court.
I'VE decided in that CASE said the
chief justice, that the state courts
could proceed in such cases in the alb
sence of the mandate of this court"
With this Mr.. Boardman's presenta-
ton of the case closed, and the court
retired for consultation at 1928 re-
turning at 1:03. The crowd in the court
room remained.
The members had scarcely taken
their seats when the chief justice an
nounced the decision, saying:
In the matter of the application for
a writ of habeas corpus in the case OF
Theodore Durrant, the petition to file
such application is denied by the unan-
imous action of the court
Upon this announcement, a majority
of the spectators filed out and the court
took up other matters.
Mr.. Boardman left with the others
merely remarking that he had exhaust
ed all the resources at his command in
the interest of his client.