75 words Shanghai, February 23, 1907.
That in said cablegram no mention is made of said appeal not being perfected for reason of delay in filing bond but the reason given for refusing ba that said appeal is " frivolous," which respectfully submitted as an imperi toe from the Clerk of an inferior Court to the Appellate Court which is fo decide upon said appeal involving the The W.-C. herald and S. C. & C. Gazette.
Szpr. 6, 1907. liberty of an American citizen and peti his release from a disgraceful charge.
14th. Re ut further answering the said citation denies that he induced the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to take action and issue an order in a case pending before it by an affidavit or petition except one which the facts of the case utterly warranted. He admits that he did state that said Price was deprived of the right to bail and that this allegation might be construed into "a charge of gross miscondact by the Judge of this Court." but that the same has been admitted to be true by said Judge and the records of the Court will show the same.
15th. Further, your respondent had no knowledge of the denial of any statement he made in any petition by the Clerk of this Court or the Judge of this Court prior to the filing of this citation.
16th. Futher your respondent your attention to the fact that practically accused by the Judge of this Court with the crime of perjury committed against him, the Judge of said Court, and charging the Judge of said Court' with gross negligence and misconduct in office, and your respondent alleges that the Honourable Lebbeus R. Wilfley, Judge of said Court, who makes such charges against your respondent in this citation, and who signs the same, is thereby precluded and is estopped from trying your respondent on said charges. That there is a legitimate and just tribunal before which any charges against Respondent can be tried, tewit, the Courts of the State of California where respondent and the Judge of this Court will meet upon equal terms. But respondent dai that the action of said Court in ing upon trying "charge against itself is unprecedented and unfair to your
will not only tend to dishonor but gnome especially where the penalty cause him to lose his profession and chance of earning livelihood.
17th.—That respondent further al-
li times when respondent was acting leges in answer to said citation that at for S. R. Price in the State of California, respondent was not an officer of this Court nor responsible for his actions therefor to this Court as such officer; and respondent further denies the jurisdiction of this court to try him for such actions.
18th.—And respondent further answering the citation alleges that while in no way admitting the accuracy of the alleged petition in the so-called printed record or by a copy of the alleged petition attached to this citation, that in truth and in fact respondent was informed by the counsel for Mr. Price and by others, that frequent applications were made to the Court for authenticated copies of papers and documents in said cause including the papers which were filed in connection with the appeal on the 19th day of January, 1907 and that the Judge and Court were requested to certify the ings, papers and documents to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and that up to the time that Respondent did moke s ition for a Writ of Habeas Corpas for said Price the Clerk of said Court had neglected and failed to certify these papers or to transmit the appeal to the Appellate Court, for reasons unknown to respondent.
Therefore, respondent demands that this citation be dismissed against him.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.