The San Francisco call., 1898-12-11
PROBLEM OF NATIONAL MOMENT
 INVOLVED IN THE BOTKIN CASE


 In the points and authorities filed With the petition I have shown legal authority for the position sought to De maintained. It is plain to my mind there is ample authority in the books of text and judicial decision to sustain the intervention of the Supreme Court to determine at once this most impor- tant question.
 There is no reason why any one moved by his sense of public interest should be censured in any quarter TOT undertaking a proceeding which has Tor its object the subserving of the pubic | good"
 Judge Carroll Cook, who is trying the 1 case of Mrs. Botkin on the murder charge, when seen last night at his home, was disinclined to talk about the | petition made to stop the trial. as the matter had not yet come to him of1l- clally, and would not until the supreme | Court had passed upon it. From hls remarks. however. it was gathered that he has no doubt of the Jurisdiction or the Superior Court in the case. and that the higher court would so rule. The question of the jurisdiction Of | the State courts,' said Judge Cook. was practically settled at the time when Mrs. Botkin was before me on writ of habeas corpus during the extra alton proceedings. It will be remem- bered that Assistant District Attorney HoSmer went to Los Angeles while the Supreme Court was sitting in bank. He went before that body and set forth every question which could be raised as to the Jurisdiction of the courts here He applied for writ of habeas cor pus also, but did not claim that the courts had no jurisdiction. He simply stated the facts of the case, that Gov ernor Budd had issued warrant for Mrs. Botkin, who was held by the au- thoritieS on the charge of murder. He set forth in full the circumstances that part of the deed was committed here and part in Delaware. The declara- tton of the facts would have deter mined Jurisdiction in advance of any. trial. At 2 o'clock that afternoon the Supreme Court denied the writ This was an admission that the Superior Court has jurisdiction
 'I am inclined to think that the peti- tion to stop the trial will not be granted by the Supreme Court That body would not issue writ of prohibition in any case unless application was first made to the court which the applicant seeks to prohibit. The question of juris- diction has not been raised on the in- dictment, and I do not see why it was brought up at this stage of the proceed ings unless delay is the prime object
 Section 27 of the Penal Code pro- vides expressly for the case in point and reads: The following persons are liable to punishment under the laws of this State: All persons who commit in whole or in part any crime within this State.
 "The petition will not stop proceed ings at all, and the case will go on until such time as the Supreme Court is- sues a writ of prohibition, if it does so at all.
 AS far as punishing the authors of the petition or rebuking them in any way, I do not think that I will follow such a course. The whole matter will be settled by the Supreme Court, which will decide the question of jurisdic- tion."
 Charles Heggerty, one of the attor- neys for Mrs. Botkin, discussed the ap- plication for writ of prohibition at some length.
 T feel morally certain he said, that the Supreme Court will inform Attorney Boardman that there is nothing in the application whatever. consider it direct interference with the trial. It is a reflection on the trial Judge, the District Attorney, the Chief of Police and the attorneys for the de- fendant, and practically charges that they are by collision taking part in murder trial which is practically a farce. 1 believe it is trifling with the courts.
 The charge, expressed or implied, that the attorneys for the defense are in league with the applicants for the writ is preposterous. Nobody connect ed with the defense would ever be a party to such a proceeding. It is sin gular that the application was not made before Chief Lees spent the $3S00 to bring the witnesses all the way from Delaware. The defense could not raise the question of jurisdiction unless evil &l~ | xlx- were never murdered In San Francisco but that the deed was committed in Delaware
 If this application to stop the trial be granted by the Supreme Court, 1t will amount to a practical acquittal for Mrs. Botkin. You may be sure that had we, her attorneys, thought for a mo- ment that there was anything in such a petition we would have made 1t long ago. Section 27 covers the point, and there is no possible ground to object to the trial of the case unless, as I say, the evidence shows conclusively that the crime was committed in Delaware and not in San Francisco, as the in- dictment states To say that we were allowing the trial to proceed with the intention at the last moment of ques- tioning the Jurisdiction of the court would be unfair to our client, whom we have promised to serve to the best of our aDll1ty. It must De TememDereQ that she is kept confined in jail and the ethics of our profession would re- quire us to raise the point if there were anything in it at the very com mencement of the proceedings, but this we positively cannot do. We are perfectly satisfied that the Superior Court has jurisdiction"
 Attorney General Fitzgerald has fol- lowed the case closely, but has not given it sufficient thought to be pre- pared to make a statement. He con- sented, however, to give a purely in- formal interview, but says it might be somewhat different should he make careful study of the laws in the prem ises. His opinions are as follows:
 "The Superior Court refused to issue the papers which would give Detective McVey the privilege of taking Mrs. Botkin back to Delaware and one of the Judges who sat in the council which made this decision has consented to try the case. So far as I can see the Su- perior Court of this State has right to try this, case after the indictment by the Grand Jury.
 "The law provides that person may be tried in this State for a crime any part of which is committed in this