Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1907-05-27

ing issued a requisition upon tho
Governor of Colorado for the eXtradi-
ton of the men. They were all re-
siding in Colorado Accompanying
the papers in the case was a copy of
the alleged confession made by Or
Chard. Governor Mcdonald took tho
matter under consideration for some
days, and then issued his eXtradition
warrant.
All the men were lodged in the
County jail for the remainder of the
night. \ special train was secured
and at o'clock a. NJ the officers left
with their prisoners for a rapid run
To- Idaho News of the arrest had
leaked out, and the train was well
On its way before it became known
that the men We're in custody. Theirs
was much bitter feeling and trouble
was feared.
This is what has been designated
is the Kidnapping of The men. It has
been insisted. by the friends of the
defendants that they should have
/ cen permitted to consult counsel in
Denver and resist removal by appeal
to the courts The State, on the 9th
er hand, has insisted that it is not
the duty of officers to thus invite le.
gal proceedings after having made an
arrest on regular eXtradition papers.
The case has been to the Supreme
"ourt of the United States; not on
the facts as to the murder itself, but
ON constitutional questions as to the
manner in which the defendants
We're originally taken into custody.
October the case was decided by
the Supreme Court of the United
States against the claims of defend
ants for release, all the members of
the Supreme Court concurring in the
view that the method by which the
authorities of Idaho gained custody
Of the men was not open to inquiry,
except Judge McKenna, who made Il
strong argument in favor of his mi-
nority view that the men had been
deprived of their constitutional
yights.
A good deal has been said about
the delay Of the trial of these men.
The facts are these: The three men
We're indicted on March 7, and on
March 16 they We're arraigned and
pleaded not guilty. The next term
Of court opened on May 20. 1t was
expected the cases would then be
brought to trial, as both sides pro-
lessed to be ready; but snag had
been discovered by the prosecution.
A statute Of the United States pro-
}ides that. when case is pending
On appeal from a Circuit Court on
habeas corpus proceedings involving
q constitutional right, any action of
the State Court in the interim Shall
be null and void. This, it was found,
bad been construed in the dictum of
an opinion Of the Supreme Court. as
meaning that the State was prohibit
ed in case under such circum-
stances. 1t was therefore held by
the prosecution that it could not pro-
coed with the trial, as a conviction,
it was contended, would be set aside,
even though the accused men should
lose in their habeas corpus case The
State asked the defense to dismiss its
appeal from the United States Circuit
Court, and stand on the one from the
State Supreme Court, but the defense
could not see its way clear to do so.
Therefore, when the court met on
May 20, this condition was called to \
the attention of Judge Smith It'll
was argued at length, but Judge
Smith held he was prohibited from
proceeding, and the cases went over
until after the Supreme Court should
have passed upon the habeas corpus
appeal.
1t has always been insisted by the |
defense that it was not necessary to !
postpone the trials and that the ac-
ton Of the State amounted to denial |
of the constitutional right to a
speedy trial. On the other hand. the |
State maintained it was prohibited |
from taking gOpt her Ctpn and fur /