The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-03-16
On The OTHER SIDE
Prosecutor of Bull Pen Pris-
oners Has His Say.
CIVIL POWER SUPREME
Committee WrangIe Over the
Habeas Corpus Question.

military affairs is net yet closed, the
prosecuting witnesses tempo ,arily gave
place today to the first Wines not idep-
titled with those bringing the charges.
This was ]. H. Fornay. the special prose
cutting officer who tried the cases before
the coroner's jury and the grand jury at
the seat of the disorder. He said that
he had been a prosecuting Official for
seventeen years and was specially Az
pointed in this case by the attorney gen
eral OF Idaho.
The witness said the corener's investi-
cation, which was much criticized on the
direct examination, was conducted in the
usual way and in accordance with the
law. The jury not only Investigated the
deaths resulting from the riot of April
20, but also the conspiracy leading I'D to
that demonstration The theory that a
conspiracy existed gave the inquiry a
broad scope. Mr.. Forney said, however,
that no force or intimidation was used
toward the witness.
Concerning the prisoners in the "bull
pen," Mr. Forney said they were not held
under specific charges but by virtue Of
the governors proclamation declaring
that the county was in a state Of ihsur-
rection This was in accordance with the
law he said, which provided that in case
of insurrection the governor can appoint
a special officer with an armed force TO
| take charge of affairs. Bartlett Sinclair
was appointed as this officer, ana as the
state militia was in the Philippines the
governor called upon the federal govern
ment for troops. The witness said the
United States troops assisted the state au-
thorities IN making arrests, but so far as
he knew they did not make arrests or dis
charges Independent of the state authori-
ties. He specifically denied that he had
authorized the proposition referred to by
Witness Simpkins relative to impricating
two miners in the blowing up of the mill
Mr.. Forney was asked as to the per
NIT system under which men were not
allowed TO work without an official per-
nit. He said Governor Stuenberger had
told him that the system was not new
that the miners unions had compelled the
mine owners to take out permits. and
that this was an inning for the other
side After some controversy Mr.. For
ney asked that this last phrase be strick-
en- out but Mr.. Lentz objected. Mr. For
ney then added to the phrase that it
was an inning for the other side, so far
as this was necessary tc preserve order
in the Couer d'Alene district"
Mr.. Forney said that the counsel for
the accused demanded the names of par
ties indicted and copies of the testimony
but this information was not given. as it
would be against the ends of justice and
would have assisted suspected parties in
escaping. Bail was not denied in bail
able cases. he said, but the men in the
bull PEN were not bailable, being held
not under the usual law process but under
the proclamation Of the governor
Mr.. Sulser conducted the cross examina-
ton. He brought out that Mr.. Forney
did not live in Shoshone county when ap-
pointed special prosecutor and he then
read a statute of Idaho to the effect that
no person shall be eligible to any county
office unless he has been an elector Of the
county for six months. The witness ex-
planned that this law applied to an cleo
tive office
He was closely questioned as to his ell
legged efforts 70 secure testimony from
Simpkins. He said that II was reported
to him that Simpkins had damaging testi-
mony to the effect that three of the pris-
oners in the bull pen participated in
blowing up the mill but he was afraid Of
his life if he gave this testimony He
(For1ey) then assuered Slmpkins of pro
lection. and said he would recommend the
court to exonerate him. but Simpkins
would make no statement.
The witness said he vas an attorney for
the Bunker Fiji mine about a year prior
to the disturbance and now he was at
torney in a case against them.
The witness was examined az length on
the legal rights involved in the suspension
of the writ OF habeas corpus. etc. he
said the writ had not been suspended in
Idaho. although the action OF the gov
ernor and the holdings If the courts
might have had that practical effect. He
maintained. however. that the denial Of
writ Of habeas corpus IN particular cases
did not operate as q general suspension Ct
the system.
The cross-exani1atfon by Mr. Leutz
and Mr.. Sulzer was directed to showing
that the attorney general Of Idaho &C.
INJURED TO the application for habess
corpus and in effect held that the errit
was suspended a heated controversy
arose over the Hypothetical question bv
AR Lentz ~ 20 whether. e. . Sister 0f
Charity had been out IN the 'bag pen
she could have secured a writ of habeas
corpus The anzwer vas that 10 such
condition coHIS have existed when NJ
Lentz pressed the question, Mr.. Stevens
u Minnesota. sharply protested that THE
question vas absurd ard onesasiesl.'
Nj Lentz de-isred IRE witness vas ssek-
ing % eCade tha Gusstf0o. ~ upon the
witness turned 80 the Ohio member ard
said: 4 am perfectly honest IL tnis
matter wsnt you - unserrtans. ST.
The witness finally dscliae5 10 anEws-
the question further Reprssentat3ve fEay
q Virginia raised re poiat that this
placed The witness fn contempt and askes
for a Tste on holding TIRE witness 80 be -
contempt a c9ntrcverxy cf naH a. heur
followed bringing freag~nt sharp ard
rasne- personal exchanges b~twesa AZ
Marsh O uliu us AID NJ. Lertz Ths
oseeiion was haaIiy changed and t1s cor
trove-sy cI7sed
Whea the witness vas asked as - hgs
politics Nj 1ets q I.3nosz sa4Eired Z
The Investigation zzs - be on uaEss-zf
I'n~s NJ Marsh answered that 81 hlz
optuten. tins investigation wzs cancsg4sa
ana executed far r.8lssScaE DUrygssa
nNY TNn