A South Seattle Murder Case Becomes a Constitutional Test

Craemer was brought before Judge Humes yesterday to plead to the charge of murdering Mrs. Philipena Miller and her baby on August 13, in South Seattle. The prisoner was accompanied by his attorney, N. Soderberg, appointed by the court, and the state was represented by Prosecuting Attorney Miller. Mr. Soderberg presented a written motion to set aside the information, which in this case, he said, was simply an affidavit made by A. O. McBride, the deputy prosecuting attorney, containing a list of some twelve witnesses for the state.

The grounds for this motion as argued by Mr. Soderberg were: That there had been no preliminary investigation into the facts before any committing magistrate, he claiming that where a person was prosecuted on information in place of an indictment, there must first be held a preliminary examination and testimony taken for the state sufficient to make out a prima facie case, and the transcript of that testimony must be filed in the superior court, upon which alone an information could be based. This step the defendant could not waive in a capital case. The affidavit of the deputy prosecuting attorney was not sufficient to put a man on trial for his life. In this case no testimony had been taken, and up to the time of the motion no transcript of the proceedings before the justice had been filed.

Mr. Miller replied that the defendant was taken before Justice Caldwell on August 16 or 17, and through his then attorney waived examination, and the transcript from Justice Caldwell’s court had been mailed on the preceding day to the clerk of the superior court.

Judge Humes denied the motion, saying that he was firmly convinced that a defendant could waive a preliminary examination. He said the motion would have been well taken if no opportunity had been given the defendant to have a preliminary hearing before a committing magistrate, but, as it was not denied that such an opportunity had been afforded, he would sustain the information.

Mr. Soderberg then excepted, and immediately filed a demurrer to the information, attacking the jurisdiction of the court. The grounds advanced were that an indictment by a grand jury was indispensable in Washington to a prosecution for a capital offense; that by the state constitution the people had, as required by section 4 of the enabling act admitting Washington into the Union, adopted the constitution of the United States as a whole and all the amendments, and that that part of the state constitution was repugnant to and overrules the subsequent clauses in the constitution which authorize prosecutions to be founded on information.

Mr. Soderberg claimed that this was a legal, and not a political question; the enabling act was a compact of the highest solemnity between the Federal and the state government, which the latter can never violate. As an instance he cited Utah, which is now being admitted, the enabling act declaring that polygamy shall never prevail in that state. The state of Utah can never adopt a constitution authorizing polygamy; any such attempt would be an act void. He claimed that the enabling act admitting Washington, the two Dakotas and Montana into the Union contained restraining clauses on all these states which the enabling act admitting other states did not contain, so that, while California, which came into the Union without any such requirements as are contained in our enabling act—that she must adopt the whole constitution of the United States—can prosecute her criminals by information, we must prosecute by indictment in accordance with the provisions of the United States constitution.

Judge Humes held that all the states were equal in respect to this question; that the effect of adopting the constitution of the United States was simply that the state of Washington consented that, as to criminal cases in the United States court, the rules laid down in the Federal constitution should be adhered to, and that the state was empowered to regulate the criminal practice and procedure in its own way, unhampered by the constitution of the United States; further, that the constitution of the United States was no more applicable to this case than were its provisions for the manner of electing a president and vice president applicable to Washington. He thereupon overruled the demurrer.

Defendant excepted and asked to have a notice of appeal from both orders entered on the minutes. This Judge Humes refused to do, holding the orders nonappealable. Here again a new exception was entered.

The defendant was then called on to plead to the information, and in a strong, clear voice answered, “Not guilty.” The court announced September 7 as the day for the trial.

Mr. Soderberg then gave notice that on September 7 he would probably move for a continuance. He claimed that the defendant, from his statement of the case made to himself, had a complete defense in the shape of an alibi, but that the only witness by which this could be proved was a somewhat eccentric mining prospector, Jack Quincy, who was now somewhere in the Cascade mountains, but whose exact whereabouts were unknown, and the defendant being penniless, with a wife and children on his hands, he was unable to send runners into the mountains to locate Quincy, but that whenever he was found, the defendant would then be ready for immediate trial. Quincy, Mr. Soderberg said, was an engineer in some oil works near Los Angeles, a very capable man, but subject to periodical sprees. He had just finished one of these sprees at Tacoma on the day of the homicide. His description is as follows: Middle age, dark complexion, black mustache, no beard, dark eyes, slender in build and an American.

This closed the proceedings and the accused returned to his cell, seemingly better as the result of his counsel’s efforts in his behalf.