The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-06-30
Dluts Supreme Court 0vsrrulsd n
Sylvester Case.
s wa,T or nAsEAs CORPUS.



1rl1ed an order tn direct aniagonism to the
eltng Of the state supreme cours rendered
go saturday in the hAbeaa vorpus pro-
1917 Instituted By Safest Il. 6yiyesfer.
uerf0 wenaas. o. North Dzkota, as the
nrrnf Of saat STATE. arrived "a the city on
Hrndsy intending TO take tfrsprisoner. who
- oeen confined In the county jail since
~ December. TO North UAkofa under
0ev. Rngefs exsradt;iou warrant. ~
Monday moruiRg H. ~. A5Otstscn. sEyi~
.cetefs attorney. applied 10 Judge Han
"a for a writ OF haHeAs corpus. which
- court declined to issue. but did grant
- order directing WenaAs and Sheriff Van
II yanter TO show cause, forthwith. Why
- pfis0ser should not be released. Al the
earinx Of this matter the same day and
sfter argument by Nr. Aibertson and 49,
netant Prosecuting Attorney John b. Hart.
,uh0 represented Tho respondents, Judge
Nanford granted the writ. directing the re-
aruond<uts 70 show cause yesterday why
- prisoner shouiu not be discharged from
custody.
II Mondays hearing Judge Hanford held
shas the return then offered by the re.
sapndents did not show sufficient cause to
SoIds The prisoner, in that the only return
1nade was the ex,radition warrant issued
81 the governor, and the decision OF the
npeeme cour, holding tina; this warrant
nione WAS sufficient 10 hold the prisoner
~ extradition without the production OF
~ feQusisioD papers upon which the war
fsnt was founded.
when xytveser was arrested In December
Hat hy wenaas ~ agent for North Dakota.
un.aor the governors warrant. he applied
q Judge Jacobs. Of the superior court Tor
Z vrt Of srabeas corpus. which was issued.
Saenr wenaas set up as his Qualification
~ the areM the extraditiou warrant.
1udse Jacobs held that this warrant WAS
feau)xr on Its face and sufficient without
rvook Of the reau.sit.on record. From this
sstnx q, appeal was taken TO the supreme
eose and soon after the prosecuting al.
torney hled q motion In the superior court
f0r dismissal OF tire appeal mainly on the
ground that the court pad no JusNu,s s
q appeals in haseas corpus proceedings.
fhA motion was argued by Mr.. Albsftson
ara Mr. McEiroy. prosecuting attorney,
and the court took the matter under ad-
Vteement
on saturday last The supreme court hand
q down an opinion holding that the ap-
peai Was properly taken and that IN view
e the summary nature OF the procssoins
they would pass upon the matter on the
merits Of the record and. a. the prisoners
attorney alleges, without argument ef
counsel and without waiting for the fegu.
lar October term af the court as II usual
"a other eases The court also issued
Ypmltfitur. forthwith. instead of waiting the
usual thirty days within which an appel
liant usually 10 allowed 70 apmy aW r..
tered over to the agent q the s,3ss o.
Nursh Dakota for exsradision snerin
Wxuaas arrived sunday intending 10 TAKE
Sylvester with him on Monday.
Hart Argues Hts Case.
On NE h.ar,nr yesterday morning Dep
MY Prosecuting Attorney Hart stated 70
fhe court ina, his office had concluded not
to supplement- the orisinal return By the
reeuisition record in the office OF me gov
sfncr, as in view or tie number Of haheas
corpus proceedings that have been and are
likely 10 be brought. his Office wished TO
nestie the practice In tie Federal courts
- to whether on a habeas corpus VIII IN
6xtrndifion proceedings. the respondents
should produce the requisition papers as
well as the executive warrant. He con-
iy Va. shst = warrant regular on us face
Il aione SUFFICIENT return 10 the WITH
Mr. Aihsrtson insisted that the rule Was
the other way. and quoted the opinion OF
1uafe C;elf az the circui; court of APP
peA}e In re Hart 81 Federal Reports
which held that the act Of a governor can
BE- reviewed BY the Federal courts. ana tnat
the governors warrant does MOI establish
the presumption that I, VAS based on
proper rsgusition records
Judge Haufora held that the requisssion
rscurss must be produced. and as the pros
ecuting attorney did Dot EJECT TO produce
them, the discharge or the prisoner was
ordered. and a further order restraining
the respondents from holding him further
enSfr the governors warrant.
Mr. Har, taen asked sha. the entry 81
the order b. delayed till he could prepare
IN appeal In behalf Of the respondents. ana
also stated that h.. would file a superse~
deas bond for holding the prisoner In Gus
tSdy pending the termination OF the sn-
peal MIR Aibsrtson took the position
that as the court had held thar the rris-
oner was unlawgally restrained of his lih-
sfsy on the records before the court, he
saca't be discharged at once, and that 4
wcod dn violence "a his rights "a A citizen
% Keep him ia tail Judge Hanford took
ne matter under adyisemeus until next
Mnnday when he wilt decide whether he
VII keep the prisoner IN custody TIL the
nearing % the appeal
TIE action OF Judge Hanford raises
eeaaes between the decisions Of the state
supreme court aud the Federal court on
We rceri before the two courts, a. being
We same in both Judge Hanf0rd holds
tnst ss the construction ~ Federal stat
Ute 10 Involved, his casirs Is hot bound by
tse state rour. decisions
tnser his ruling the supreme court not
Wy erred In holding that ths executive
vAffsni vas alone a sufficient tetarn to
We writ ha: Ia holding that thss rarttcu-
W warrant was regular on It's face.