Arizona republican., 1921-06-17
CANNOT REVIEW
 JUDGMENT OF THE
 SUPREME COURT

Though the decision of the su preme court in the matter of the cer- tiorari proceedings. quashing the record of the habeas corpus proceed ings in the case of Nichan Martin. was announced some days ago, the written opinion prepared by Justice Baker and concurred in by Chief Justice Ross and Justice McAllister was made public yesterday.
 HAing recited the circumstances attending the case of Martin from the decision of the court on his ap- peal and the fixing of June 10 as the date of his execution the denial of motion for rehearing, the applica- tion to the superior court of Pinal county for writ of habeas corpus, the denial of the writ by Judge Jenekes. occupying the court at that time. the appeal from this order the fixing of the supersedeas bond and an order for stay of execution, the opinion states:
 The oaly question involved is
 whether the superior court or any judge thereof had Jurisdiction to order the issuance of this particular writ of habeas corpus The matter Is or grave, importance. for 1t i'm wolves the orderly administration of
 justice through the protection and
 preservation from hindrance, inter ference or embarra ssment of juris
 diction already invoked and presently
 existent. The question is could Judge J. s. Jenckes legally entertain
 the petition for habeas corpus and thereby review the judgment of this court
 We answer the inquiry emphati-
 cally in the negative He possessed
 no such power. The attempt to do
 so was wholly unjustifiable. beyond
 the jurisdiction and power of the
 judge and without support iA law.
 reason or logic. Especially is this ton and effect of the judgment of this court. It is obvious that any other view would tend to bring about a deadly conflict between the juris- diction and power of this court and the jurisdiction and power of the superior court or the judge thereof, and would necessarily result in hampering and impeding the admin 1 istration of the law and bring the law l into disrepute and disfavor, and de- l prive 1t of the respect and reverence 1 of the people of the state. This must not be- It cannot be.
 The fact that the superior courts I and the judges thereof have concur rent Jurisdiction with this court IT habeas corpus cases does not autho- 1 rize either of these courts or either o such judges to issue writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of reviewing the Judgments of this court A judgment of this court imports alb. l solute yerity 1t must be regarded as free from all error- It is fina and conclusive upon the superior l courts and the judges thereof. ans they may not question such judgment i neither are they permitted to hampe or impede the due and timely execu tion of such judgment.
 II The opinion goes outside this, tn 1 only question brought up by the wri ! of certiorari, and deals with tn ! grounds on which the petition for tn
 writ of habeas corpus was based. tha
 Martin had not been brought prompt Ely to trial Says the opinion:
 Fl This was not raised on the appea in this court. neither was it men 3 toned in the petition for rehearing E It might have been raised The rul
 is, when a judgment is affirmed b.
 this court. all questions raised by tn assignments of error and all ques tions that might have been so raise are regarded as finally adjudicate against the appellant. Neverthe less. it may be said that In examin ing the record and considering tn case on appeal. this court observe 1 the fact that Nichan Martin was nc tried until the 25th day of Marcl l 1920, but considered the matter i'm 1 material. the record showing that h l 1 raised no question as to the delay 6 any time before or during the tri; ! 1 and took no steps toward assertin his rights to an earlier trial. Fl
 waived the informality if any e, isted
 In conclusion the opinion says
 We make way for no other court the land in our estimation and apprt citation of the incalcuIable value ar benefits of the writ of habeas corpl the greatest writ known to ol laws. But we will not sanction Il abuse of the writ
 Students matriculating late for tl winter term of the University Texas, paid in fines a sum of $93 " ho nr Q nf t7O