The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-28

thereby set the example for rendering society unsafe by
bringing the laws OF the land into contempt
These Suggestions not Immediately applicable to
the case. and ave had no weight ia the conclusion
have been obliged 10 to- bal they not inappi
cable u the line OF srsument adopted by one OF ihe de-
PENDANTS cDanse or untitled the aspect OF this
it's bearing upon lhe dangers aud the duties that surround
US ciuxens OF The Common~ea lh and OF the Unlon.
My conclusion in sending ny the compliant Is deter.
mined mainly by the bearing OF the testimony upon one
point The weight Of the evidence To establish the
iacl that just about the time the rush was made by the
from the outside. that act WAS either preceded or
accompanied by call TO in. Three witnesses are
positive that this invitation came from the defendant and
one other witness heard the words Come in " or In,
in 20 This exclamation could not have come from any
person outside OF The door, and all the circumstances sur
rounding the defendant IN the testimony tend 10 hx
upon him
Mr. r. Riley saw the defendant standing in the jury
seats doing nothing but The precise time is left uncertain
because he states that his attention was occupied by The
prisoner and when be left the prisoner and rushed TO the
door, he was pressed between the baze door and the
Judges bench. and he there pointed TO the prisoner to
deter him. though he had weapon and told him he
would shoot him If he stirred This rs not inconsistent
with other testimony tending 10 show that the defendant
was forced back or came back INTO the room simuane
ousy with the rush of the mob which followed or ac-
companed the call to come in.
The testimony of Mr. Davis, for the defence, does not
necessarily conflict with this current OF the governments
testimony, He says that when be went out he did mol
the defendant al all that as he slipped out he saw
black fingers the door, and then the door closed
Immediately after he The fingers the door, and he
made get down TO the landing. But if there is
conflict OF testimony Is OF tndI III
province of jury and not Of examining magistrate TO
settle IT,
II the call in made by the defendant, It
could have been only for the purpose OF inviting and and
ing in rescue because that time the defendant knew
that the marshal had directed all but the officers to etre
with the OF keeping the prisoner in close custody
and but the officers the prisoner and the defendant
were there as the mob broke in.
Such an act, followed as il by the rescue OF the
prisoner and the conduct OF the defendant before and at
the time, would plainly within the provis-
ions of the STATUTE constituting directly indirectly the
offence charged The defendant has failed to explain the
evidence against him here earnestly hope he may be
able TO do SO elsewhere.
The defendant is ordered TO recognise IN the sum OF
three thousand dClas with surety for his appearance at
the dsrc, court of the United States next to be holden
in Boston, the third Tuesday OF March next.
After Mr. Halle had concluded Mr. Sewall said that
the penalty but 81 900 and six months imprson
inent, he wished inquire if the court Had any doubt
that half OF the amount Of the present bail would be sum
cen 10 hold the defendant
Mr. Hallet "if the prisoner is not able to give bail
in the Of $1,000 should be glad TO entertain your
proposition"
Mr. Sewa said tina, the bail should be governed by the
ofe nee and not the ability of the party that General
Quitman was recently held bail in $1,000 for high
misdemeanor although he able give $4,000 bail
Mr. Halleu said he disposed TO be as lenient as
possible with the defendant and the maximum OF the
penalty was 81 900 fine and months Imprisonment he
concluded to reduce the bail to 81 900.
Mr. Seuail then became surety in that sum Tor the ap
peaance of MIR Wright before the district court OF the
United States on the third Tuesday OF March next, tor
trial