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

r,or Fred Sattes arc now free men, md under the ruling of the court, will | ,o, have Co stand trial, either now or !, i, ,he future, upon the charge of brib. w
 In sustaining the demuifer of dcfen. An,s thc court held that the indict. -,nt vas invalid; in fact, bo upacld n, demurrer in almost every psrticu. lr and his decision was given solely mon questions of law, without enter. as into discussion of the facts of n. ease. Whether the defendants arc guilty or not guilty, is a question that k by no means settled by the present ,utsomc of the case. Friends of Mir. Norris who believe in his innocence, re. r, that he did not go before n jury ,ad there bc acquitted, as they believe s would bc, by jury of ais peers.
 The decision of the court, In effect, ,bnt section l6I under which the ,dc,mcn,s were drawn, is inadequate ,rd does not apply to the present case. ,sd as no indictment can bc framed rlcr section so which does At the case, ,,,ion hereunder being barred by the Iatu,c of limitations, the defendants ahnot be indicted or tried again for At same offense. District Attorney Morrison made valiant attempt to ycurc an order for n special grand MY. hc claimed that hc could cure the i,fcrts of the present indictment were mother indictment returned by a p'cal grand jury; but the court ruled o,herwisc, and plainly said that as he hal placed his constyuction under sec ,on i6I, hc could not without forfeit. | ,rg his ~lf-rcspcct, interpret the stat g,c upon second submission. other sisc than he had done in this instance. Hc explained that the court had no legislative powers and that he must i've strict construction to tho stat afs even though public interest seemed demand that they be construed oth' risc.
 On Monday, Attorney Ling, repre- sn,ing defendant Norris, had argued n,t ,hc indictment was defective in Tour important particulars;
 First, that the indictment did not al. l'se that Sattcs was supervisor on March !, when the bribc money was al ltgcd 10 have been paid.
 Second, that there was no action p,nding before the board of supcrvis or on March 5, innsmuch as there was 10 vacancy.
 Third, that there was no vacancy or ,sa' date, because n resignation had 'n been completed.
 Fourth, that there was nothing 1T ,ht indictment to show that the peu tons before the board of supervisors voo lawful petitions as required by tho statute. viz: that they each contained 'hc signatures of thirty electors.
 When court opened yesterday morn ng District Attorney Morrison proceed 't to answer the arguments by MI Ling and uphold the validity of the m air,mcnt He remarked; "It Is sa'' that the sustaining of the demurre would end the proceeding. That IS matter to be taken up at another time Tho indictment alleges that Sattes wn duly elected and qualified supervi' af and as the general law prescribe ,aa, he he qualified on the first Moi day of January of that year, inc e' prcsion must he construed to mca Aat he was a member of the board c mpcrvisors on March !. Alleging th h hc the fact on March 6. it follow 'ha' he was previous to that lime regularly acting member of the boar Tho prosecution is not confined to m siari date In the drawing of an Il he'mcnt as long as if comes wito 'he statute of limitations.
 Now as regards the great sire placed upon the word pending py u d'fonSc, If the law is that nothi' ." pending because the res'gna''' Dad no, been accepted or acted upo Then section l6l is delusion ana
 maro It means that the defehd"' Tar as the law is concerned, con nave gone openly before the board
 "pervisors, and could have oher
 sSOo to each member to have voted
 isIoot as district attorney. Is that
 's'r constructionf l insist that son
 h'ng was pending. It was docnme
 ''ed by Ellinwood rendering his res
 "tlon to take effect on March lo' Tn
 was the initiatory stcp--tne foun'
 uon on which all other acts rest
 'nng was the same as the filing o'
 complaint in civil case Whether
 vacancy existed or not, is not the C
 vel point Tho rcsiUnatiOn beca