Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-12
WOULON' GRANT WRIT
Supreme Court Decides Against
Anna Valentino.
UNDER DEATH SENTENCE
Ruling Against Witnesses in Trust
Prosecutions.
THEY MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS
Officials Declined to Produce Their
Books-Franchises of the Chi
cago Street Railways.
THEY MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS

The Supreme Court of the United States
today refused to grant writ of habeas
corpus In the case of Anna Valentino the
Italian woman who Is under sentence CT
death at Hackensack. n. J.. on the charge
of murder In that city in 1904 mus affirm
ing the decision of the circuit court.
The Valentino woman was charged with
the murder of another Italian woman. Rosa
Salza by name, the alleged crime having
taken place on March 10. 1904. She pleaded
guilty to the indictment OF murder In the
first degree, ignorant OF the fact. as she
afterward contended, that the law grant
ing the court the power to determine the
degree of crime under such a decree had
been repealed. She based her appeal on her
ignorance, which she said was due to the
fact that she did not understand the Eng
fish language. She asked for a writ OF
habeous corpus. which the court refused
TO grant.
Tobacco Trust Cases.
The tobacco trust cases. involving the
right OF witnesses to refrain from testify
Ing before federal grand juries In proceed
lngs under the antitrust law, were today
decided by the Supreme Court Of the United
Stntes against the witnesses. The cases
grew out of proceedings for writs of habcas
corpus instituted in, the circuit court for
the southern district OF New York whose
decision was affirmed. The court held how
ever. that the subpoena IN this case was
too broad.
The titles of the cases were: Edwin F.
Hale agt United States. Marshal Henkel
and VIM. H McAlister agt Henkel and
both came to the Supreme Court on appeals
from the United States circuit court for
the southern district of New York
These cases involved the broad question
OF the right OF federal grand fury to com
witnesses answer az
this question has recently arisen In many
OF the federal courts. the decision in this
case has been looked forward to with much
interest. The present proceeding had it's
origin In connection with suit OF the
government against the American Tobacco
Company. commonly known as the to-
bacco trust the McAndrews & Forbes Com
pany and the Imperial Tobacco Company.
under the antitrust law, which was fnsti-
tuted in the circuit court OF the United
States for the southern district of New
York.
Officers Refused to Testify.
Hale and McAllister are officers of to-
bacco companies. and when called to testify
before the grand Jury relative to the ex-
istence of the so-called trust they refused
to answer questions or to produce their
books. They were committed for contempt
of court and sought to escape by means
of wrfts OF habeas corpus. These writs
were refused and the case was brought to
the Supreme Court by the defendants III
the hearing they attacked the Jurisdiction
of the grand jury and commended that at
tie time they were before the jury there
was no action pending against the tobacco
companies. The tury's right~to con- pei an
swers was questioned on. the ground that
in the investigation IL was making there
was no specific charge against any partic-
ular persons They also attacked the con-
OF the act of February %
1903. granting immunity to witnesses in
Justice Brown delivered the opinion of
the court.
Paper Trust Gases.
In an opinion by Justice McKenna the
Supreme Court of the United States today
decided the cases against the witnesses in
the paper trust" cases against them, hold
Ing that they should answer the questions
to them in the proceeding
against the alleged trust brought by the
The cases originated in Min
uesota and Wisconsin. The Wisconsin cases
were dismissed for want OF Jurisdiction
wnIle in the Minnesota cases the verdict
of the court for the district OF Minnesota
was affirmed.
The proceeding in these cases was an ef-
fort on the part of the officers of the Gen
eral Paper Company, commonly known as
the western paper trust. to avoid testify
ing in the governments prosecution Of that
under the Sherman antitrust law.
The original action. out of which the cases
grew was instituted In the circuit court
for the district of Minnesota IN December.
1904 but the transaction involved in the
cases decided today by the Supreme Court
took place in Milwaukee, May 10 last, be-
fore an examiner sent to that city to take
testimony In the proceeding against the pa
per company.
Among the witnesses summoned by the
examiner were l.. NJ. Alexander, secretary
and treasurer; George A Whiting first
nd art
sales manager Of the General Paper Com
pany and f. T. Harmon, president of the
Grand Rapids Pulp and Paper Company.
They refused TO produce their books or TO
make reply to certain questions concerning
r he ronspiracy alleged by the government
in the proceedings against the paper COM
pany, claiming personal privileges under the
fourth and fifth amendments TO the Consti-
tutIon of the United States, which they
asserted relieved them from disclosing the
facts concerning which they were interro-
gated
Chicago Street Railway Gases.
The Chicago street railway cases. in
volvfng the question OF the date OF deter
OF the franchises OF the lines
running from the center OF Chicago to the
north and west sides were today decided
BY the Supreme Court of the United States.
The oplnion was delivered by Justice Day
and reversed the decision OF the United
States circuit court for the northern dis
trict of Illinois. He held that the act of
the Illinois legislature of 1865 had the ef-
feet of extending the charter of the railway
for ninety-nine years.
Unanimous Against Caleb Powers.
The Caleb Powers case was decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States
against Powers The opinion was delivered
by Justice Harlan, and held that the case
was not removable from the state TO the
federal courts The case was therefore re-
to the Kentucky state courts. The
opirfon was based on the ground that the
eouaI rights statute. section 64l, Revised
statutes does not apply unless recognized
hy state laws the state constitution.
Justice Harlan said that the Supreme Court
~ the United States could take cognizance
Of the case on writ Of error The opinion