Arizona republican., 1915-12-03
DECISION TO STOP
 ANY FURTHER ERROR
Construction of Law to Be Explicit, Believed; Sims Answer Frankly Held to Be Insufficient ill Crowd ed Court

Whatever the supreme court may finally do in tile mater of the con- tempt proceedings against Superin- tendent Robert B. Sims of the state prison for permitting the writ of eN- ecution against William Faltin. the murderer to expire without service the court left no doubt of it's stern disapproval of the act of the super intendent At the close of a hear ing lasting a little more than an hour yesterday morning, of the appli- cation of Attorney General Jones for the citation of the superintendent for contempt, the court announced that the matter would be taken under adVisement.
 It is believed that the court will hand down a written opinion in which there will be an fnterpreta ton of the law, so plain that the superintendent cannot err again. At the close of the hearing. the superin- tendent inquired whether his further presence was necessary. He said that his business at the institution was urgent as preparation must be made for the hanging of VilIalobos next Friday. The superintendent was told that lie might go and that if he was required by the court later, he would be sent for
 Alter a brief statement by Assis- tant Attorney General Hardy when the court was called to order at ten o clock yesterday morning. George J. Stoneman, attorney for Mr. Sims pre- scented a return to the summons in which he asked for the dismissal of the writ. inasmUCh as it contained no allegation that the superintendent lad violated the law and had there fore, not been in contempt MT Stoneman read among other things a letter from the attornev general to the superintendent in the case of William KeTmcen, in which he sue- Eested the investigation of Kermeen as to his mental condition. This said MT. Stoneman was a precedent and a warrant to the superintendent to do what he had done in the FaltiR case.
 The superintendent said AIr Stoneman, had been placed in most difficult position. The respon- sibility was a Weighty one He was torn between his duty to execute the writ and his duty to observe the law as it applied to condemned prisoners suspected of insanity MT. Stoneman referred to the Edgar case in Califor- mia where the acting warden of san Quentin had refused to execute convict in whose behalf an appeal had been taken to the federal court Tine supreme court of California had held that the acting warden was put into the position of deciding whether the appeal acted as a stay of execu- ton. It was a question which none but he could decide.
 Al this point, the court which had been listening with evident i'm patience to the citation of the Cali fornia case, brushed it aside. It was not a question of law before the court said Justice Franklin The question was whether the superin- tendent had acted in good faith and thereafter the issue was confined to that one thing, the genuine belief of the superintendent that Faltin was insane. Mir. Stoneman said that he could offer only the affidavit of the superintendent, constituting a part of the return ca that point He argued that the superintendent had ob- served Faltin for some time; pr. Randall, the prison physician had had him under observation and then, on November 25 on the joint opin- ion of Dr. Randall and Dr. O. E. Plath of Phoenix, the superintendent believed Faltin to be insane and took steps to bring him to an investiga- ton as provided for in paragraph 1141 of the penal code.
 ICOpfipDad C, Ioaoa T1v-ON