The copper era and Morenci leader. [volume] (Clifton, Ariz.) 1911-1929, 1915-08-06
| Editorial Opinion
1T WAS VERY INTERESTING.

we WOulQ IlOL Cr1IlClS0 Lu0 JUDICIAL
conduct of Judge McAllister in the
cases of the application for writs Of
habeas corpus for the four murderers
at Florence last Thursday. Judge
McAllister is said by those who know
him to be Christian. and conscienti-
Gus gentleman, incapable of any act
which he believes to be wrong. What
we shall have to say of the proceed
ings at Florence is, therefore, not ut
tered in a. spirit of fault-fnding. 1t
will rather be descriptive of an inter-
esting incident, interesting because
so unusual.
The only matter before the court
was an application for these writs on
grounds SO baseless that the proceed
ings beforehand were doomed to be
ridiculous. 1t was not contended that
the murderers had been deprived at
any stage of their rights. There was
nowhere the slightest question of their
guilt of the foulest of crimes. It had
been admitted by Governor Hunt him
self in an interview last December
that in the case of none of them were
there any extenuating circumstances.
Almost on the eve of their execution,
after many reprieves, after some of
the murderers had been under con-
domination for years, one, for three
years, there was al trumped-up basis
for an application for writs of habeas
corpus; the form of the death, war
rants was alleged to be defective.
This was regarded only slightly more
ridiculous than a second ground that
the murderers had been twice in
Jeopardy, once on trial for their
lives and once when they had been
GRANTED reprieves when they had not
asked for them. The courage or Splen-
did nerve of even the attorneys for
the petitioners failed them at this
point, and it was not urged at the
hearing. We believe it was not men
toned by them.
The court did what any court in
the land would have done. He denied
the application. We may disregard
the question whether the application
was groundless, whether the murder
ers were entitled to the writ or not.
They either were or they were not,
and when the court decided that they
were not, the court was either right
or wrong. 1t TRANSFERRED that the
order denying the writs was one from
which no appeal could be taken.
There could be no delay in the hang
ing. The matter was apparently end
ed right there. The door was closed.
In this state of affairs, the attorneys
for the petitioners relt that a serious
misake had been made. But by
whom? 1t was necessary that it
should be remedied. Two hours later
the court vacated the order denying
the writ, and when court vacates an
order it is an admission that an error
has been made in the issuance of it.
THE inference in this case would
therefore, be that the court had be
come convinced that he had erred in
denying the writ. A further inference
would naturally be that to correct the
error, the court would do the only
other thing there was to be done pre-
vious to making the order, and thai
would be to grant the writ.
The order having been vacated, an
other was entered granting the wri
whereupon the attorneys for the muir
lderers demanded their discharge Tha
was refused by the court. This or
der was an appealable one. The at
torneysthus having been releasedfron
cul de sac which had been inadvertent
ly closed behind them, gayly and witt
success sought another aperture
hitherto unused, we believe, but which
happily had an opening ait eithe
end. But we think It will not b,
used so frequently in the future tina
it will come to be regarded as 1ega
thoroughfare. Having been restores
to light and air and consciousness
again, the attorneys filed a motion t,
dismiss the murderers from custody
That was denied, and the order de
nying it was appealed from. 1t wa
very interesting case, very.-Phoe
nix Republican.