The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-14

are stated under oath, this would be
sufficient. Can it be doubted that had
the applicants remained in Idaho, they
could have been arrested upon a war
rant issued upon this indictment, and
that such warrant would not have to
be supported by complaint made upon
the personal knowledge of the com
plalnant? In the case where conf
plant under oath has been held neces-
sary no indictment has been found. In
interpreting the constitution Of the
united states we may refer to the
common law as to the meaning of the
terms used. AT common law a COM
plant did not have to state facts
known to the personal knowledge of the
complainant that would show that an
offense had been committed. In Black
stones Commentaries it is set forth that
a justice of the peace may also issue n
warrant to apprehend a person sus-
pected OF felony, although the orig
lEal Suspicion may not be IN hlmSelf,
but in a party who prays his war
rant. because he is competent judge
OF the probab ability offered to him of
such suspicion. The magistrate could
examine parties under oath as to these
suspicious. If the rule is to prevail,
even after an Indictment has been
round against the party, that he can
pc arrested only upon complaint I'M
der oath which charges facts within
the personal knowledge of the person
n aking the complaint. it would be diff
ficult for the United States to arrest a
party outside of the district where the
offense is committed. No one is re-
quired to go outside of the district
where he lives and make such COM
plant against an offender. For these
reasons I don't think this point we'll
taken.
LAS to the second point, as ! have
said, the indictment showed probable
cause that persons bearing the same
names as the applicants had commit
ted the offense charged, and there was
Sufficlent evidence to warrant the COM
hitting magistrate in finding the APP
pllcants We're the Erwin Edwards and
John s. Earles named in the indictment.
In regard to the point that the indict-
ment is insufficient, I hold that in this
case 1t cannot be urged. There is no
doubt that the court in which the in
dictment was found had jurisdiction to
inquire into the offenses named there-
in. The defects named are such Us
could be raised upon demurrer to the
same. and do not affect the jurisdiction
of the court in which the same was
found. In the case of Mccoy, 127 U.
S.. 131. the supreme court had occasion
to consider this question, and held that,
Wnlle upon habeaS corpus court could
rot inquire into the jurisdiction of a
court in which defendant was COM
mitted it would inquire as to whether
there Is in the Indictment such specific
allegations as to details of the charge
as would make it good on demurrer.
The court where the applicants We're
indicted had jurisdiction of the offense
charged, and it is called upon to deter
| mine the sufficiency of the indictment
against them, and this court ought not,
upon writ of habeas corpus, to nsurp
| its functions and duties. 1t is therefore
| ordered that the writ of haheas corpus
| allowed in this case be dismissed, and
| that the appellants be remanied and
continued in custody by the marshal
of Lewis and Clarke county until the
| further order of this court