Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1908-05-20

marked "I have given this matter my most conscientious thought before giving a decision, and l am tired
 Morrison am sorry that my argu | mcnt wcaricd the Court. It was not | half as long as that of the defense.
 The Cour,.--i did not mean that | The argument of the district attorney was both able and interesting IT he has anything new to present, l will hear it.
 The district attorney reiterated his request for a submission Of the mat. ter to the grand jury. saying that the question of n "vaeancy' was not a crucial point, and insisted that there was matter pending before the board when the alleged bribery occurred.
 In reply Judge Sloan said with con. siderable feeling: "The Court could not grant the request and retain it's self respect, as it would he obliged to make the same ruling again as to the inadcquacy of section l6l. It is a most extraordinary thing both as Co law and to facts. and it would he exercising legislative function for the court in extending the statute beyond tho ap plication. lt does not seem 10 me how it can be possible that these facts would justify an indictment that would no, meet with the same objections as have already been pointed out.
 Morrison--I now ask the court Co order n special grand jury 10 he i'm pannclcd mex, week in order to bring before it matters of special importance.
 The Court-Is it the same matter as this'
 l Morrison
 The Court Then it is denied.
 At this juncture Attorney Ling ask cd that the bondsmcn bc exoncrated and his client discharged. The request was granted.
 Mir. Morrison refused to drop the matter, and asked for re.submission to grand jury, contending that an in' dic,meni could bc framed under sec. tions 73 and 7i of the Penal Code.
 The Court failed to see how ii was possible under any construction of tho statutes io frame an indictment cover. ing the matter, and hence saw no need for n special grand jury. The or. der for n rc-submission being denied, the district attorney gave formal mo- ticc of an appeal to the supreme court.
 The case against Fred Sattes was then called and as the points raised on demurrer were identical with those in the Norris case. the demurrer was sus' taincd. Sattcs was discharge and hi, bondsmcn released.
 it is said that the Arizona statute on bribery. section l6i. tx suigcncris, the only one of its kind in the United States. It classes as . felony the or fcnse of bribery where it pertains to matters that are "pending" before a board of supervisors or similar govern ! ing body. while the statute of other states includes matters that are pend
 ing or may he pending. Section so o' , the Penal Code of Arizona conforms to . the latter phraseology. but as the of r fcnse under it is made only misdc mcanor. an indictment is barred afic' |. two years after the commission of th' n ollensc. Because of t0is statute o'
 limitations. the district attorney eoul' z not base his indictment on section so < and was therefore restricted to th' n utilizing of section l6i which the conr $ now declares to he inadequate to fit th' [ conditions of the Norris'Sattcs case. U
 should bc the duty of the next legisla n ture to cure this defect. as the dismls
 sal of any ease by reason of techn' !, cality, lawful though |, he, IS unsati' s factory to the public, and in no wis c solves the question of inc guilt or inno
 ,r ,l. u.rsnu aqeussl.