The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-11
ALengthy Document Is
 Filed. LAKES ISSUE WITH THE
 IMPEACHMENT DECISION Responsibility of Prisoners Keep Rested on Iailer. A1se says Tkat the Court Was ia Erres In Declaring That the Jail
 Was . Modern
 Structure.

Application for rehearing of the
 Casalas impeachment case, so persist 1ently rumored as forthcoming. was lfinally received yesterday by General lR. E. Ligon. Clerk of the Supreme < Court. It Is a long document, signed sby counsel in the original proceedings flor ex-SherfF Frank Cazalas, ST. Jrhese are Gregory L. smith and Fran els J. Inge.
 The counsel argue elaborately many phases of the proceedings that were
 not covered by the decision of the Su- ipreme Court, or at least the opinion of I the majority as written by Justice R. lT. Simpson. Much stress is laid on the construction of the Mobile County jail, and probably a haif-dozen times lin the application, counsel for the de- posed sheriff insist that the Supreme Court "misapprehended" the situation and were ''in error" in number of 1n- stances.
 One of the rather spicy sentences of I the document is that which takes is- fsue with the Supreme Court, in that ifribuuaPs assertion that "the jail is Q
 modern structure from which the ne- gro Robertson was taken and lynched and because of which Mir. Cazaias was deprived of his office."
 < Tn this connection the application de- clares that the Mobile County jail is
 sweii arranged to keep prisoners in. ] but could not be worse arranged to keen fntruders out or to enable the guards to defend the Jail against force"
 FoIiowine are some of the points raised in the application. I Court erred in finding that 'jaii Is .
 modern structure, well arranged and ; guarded'
 sTn finding that the State or County has provided . suitable and well con- structed jail, with strong doors, not only to prevent escape but to prevent unlawful entrance
 "In the suggestion made by the court l9hat 1t Is the duty of the sheriff at all times to make use of these means of lprotection against possible interrupt- fon.'
 Tn holding that ordinary prudence would suggest that the sheriff should ] at least give orders that all the doors santo the jail should be closed and take cthsr precautions when he leaves it for Eahe night"
 Some of the new matter in the ap. splication includes the reminder that ESheriff Cazalas appointed Thomas Pow. lers as 1aAler. man who is and was "fnteIligent and experienced" and of s'better education" than the sheriff him tRalk. When he thus appointed a good t5ailer to watch and care for the prison lAt was insisted that both the statutes land the decisions of the Supreme ICouTt on the subject authorized the Esherfff to commit the care and protect Hon of the jail and the prisoners to the t3ailer's Judgment and discretion, and .1fle sherifg became liable only civilly for the jailer's acts.
 It was pointed out that the local act tof 1893. contemplated two jail guards flor Mobile County while "the evidence lin this case shows that i've guards kwere provided" Therefore. it Is insist sed. the sheriff performed his whole duty when he appointed a proper per- son as jailer, and furnished him with sufficient guards to do his work. It was insisted further that the court rnfsapprehended the situation in Ispeakfng of the duty of the sheriff 10 kgive instructions for leaving the jail at night. The sheriff was not the jaiI- CT nor twas his place of business at