Arizona republican., 1905-01-18

sides had entered into a stipulation by
 which the proceedings in the case of William Norton should apply to all of the seventeen cases and the arguments were begun.
 Thomas D. Bennett opened for the petitioner He reviewed the case brief
 ly, saying that he would reserve the
 greater part of the time which had
 been allotted to him for MT. Ives, who would close. MT. Bennett took the gen eral ground that the children had nev- CT passed beyond the control of the hospital authorities and were there fore not subject to adoption. He laid stress upon the fact that Judge Lit tie of Graham county who had grant ed the letters of guardianship had at , the indignation meeting at Clifton the day following the arrival of the chill dren there. told the populace that they had no right to take them. MT. Ben nett deplored that a colossal blunder had been committed in the bringing Of the children to Clifton and that great grief would necessarily follow in it's train but that the hospital owed it to itself to establish it's right to the children.
 Mir. Bennett was followed by MT. Mcfarland for the respondents. He addressed himself mainly to law points. reviewing briefly the incident of the bringing of the children to Clifton and the subsequent removal of them from the Mexicans and still later their reg ular adoption. Replying to a state ment by Thomas D. Bennett that the hospital people had had no opportunity to correct the blunder which had been made, he said they had made no effort to correct it. The agent Swayne had insulted the people who had called up-
 on him to tell him what kind of peo- pie he was leaving the children with.
 He said that they were going ito re- main where they had been placed" and that The knew his business" and that he would not be dictated to-
 Then said MT. Mcfarland the peo- ! pie of Clifton were moved by human | ity to the action which they had talk en. They had reason to believe that l If the children were allowed to be 1 taken away the outrage would be re- | peated with greater success in some
 other locality. It was argued by MT.
 Mcfarland that the action of the hos pital authorities constituted an aban- donment of the children.
 | Walter Bennett closed for the re- spondents in a powerful argument ! in which he avoided sentiment as
 much as was possible in a case of this ! extraordinary kind. In his opinion the
 first thing to be considered was the
 welfare of the children. The rights of
 the hospital authorities were as noth- | ing compared with this That view had been held in all precedents Even unworthy parents and guardians were | considered to have no rights against
 the welfare of the child. He alluded
 to the Milligan case of Ohio, in which
 an orphan asylum empowered by the
 laws of the state to become the legal
 guardian of children left in its care,
 had brought an action to recover pos
 session of a child which 1t had tenn 1 porarlly surrendered. The child had
 been regularly adopted and the asy- lum sought to recover possession or 1t | on the ground that it's guardian was an unfit person The action was by a writ of habeas corpus. The court
 while it gave possession of the child back to the hospital expressed an opfu-
 ion that the proceeding was irregular and that the decision was based en- | tireIy on the showing of the unfltness ! of the respondent which had been
 made. The law was in his favor but against it weighed the welfare of the ! cd with greater power by the laws of the state of Ohio than was the New
 York Founding Hospital by the laws | of New York. It was not even a guar
 dian in it's own state and could cer-
 tainly not be regarded as one In for
 eign state. This case too, differed from the Ohio case in that the respondents
 were admittedly able to furnish the | children good homes.
 Moreover a great affection had 1 sprung up on both sides between the children and their foster parents IL
 was true that this strong tie had not been long in the weaving-only few months-but when these busy little
 weavers throw their arms around the necl1s of their new found parents they
 work rapidly and effectively and for all
 time. so that the tie is as one Of flesh
 and blood.
 The arguments were concluded by
 Mir Ives in strong address. He. said that in the course of hIs prac-i
 tice he had never been connected with | case which so filled him with dis.
 tress. He believed that the court had never before been so gTieVously em barrassed. This deplorable situation
 was the result of Q blunder which was
 almost criminal The Morenci- priest
 was to be blamed for what had be- | come Q calamity. It was possible, too, l that the sisters and the agent when
 they arrived at Clifton with the chill dren and saw the character of the peo-
 pie with whom they were to find homes ! had not acted with the best judgment
 but the purity of their motives could not be questioned. The children.
 through the priest had been assigned
 to these families and the sisters felt
 that they could not disobey the gen
 eraI orders of the mother superior but that they would have to wait and eT- 1 erclse their function of Investigating the homes before they could refuse to place the children. MT. Ives alluded to the testimony that Sister Ann Michella had watched with streaming eyes the half breeds carrying the beautiful chil- .,..