The Shasta courier., 1855-02-17
The Red RInH Hanging Affair.

The Grand Jury for this county, now in sea
sion, have found true bills fos murder asain,,
G. w Williams, Dow Vincent Moody King. .wm
Fagg, and several others who are yet at large.
and whom, in consequence, it would be i'm,
proper to name
On Tuesday the prisoners above named ap-
peared before W. 7. .Daingerfeld, District Judge.
on writ of habeas corpus, and made application
to be admitted to bail. By the following opinion.
it will be seen that the application was denied,
and the prisoners remanded to prison, to stand
trial at the next regular term of the District
Court, commencing on Monday the Goth of next
month =
In this case an application is made to me an
District Judge for admission 10 bail. The appli,
cation is made under the Constitution and un.
der the Statutes Of California. Both the con,
sti:uton and the laws give TO parties right to
the issuance OF this writ, and to bail under it,
Even III capital offences discretion is given:
but this discretion is also restricted, and posi-.
tive prohibition is made in cases where the
proof is evident or the presumption great. Tho
question, unon hearing evidence, seems to be
left on the facts in the sound discretion Of
judge, acting thus far jury, and is to be de-
clded only question OF fact. The consttu-
tion and the statute law acknowledge the right
of bail, if the facts will Justify such an exercise
of power on the part OF the Court and regret
that 10 me has been left the decision of a ques,
ton Of fact.
1t is always a subject of delicacy, and partic-
ulary is it SO in this have arraigned be- .
fore me men whom have been proud to recos-
nlze as frends-men who have sustained fair
character in the community in which they live,
and men who, probably, in their cool monepts.
would scorn to do any act that would tarnish
their fair fame i'll the eyes of the community;
but who, nevertheless, as is proved before me,
have violated the laws of the country which
am sworn to protect. The motives which in,
duced their action am not at liberty to inquire
into. That will be the province of jury upon
rraignment. The simple fact which ! am called
upon TO decide, is whether the presumption Of
their having committed tie o6cnce charged in the
indictment Is great. From the evidence before
me | am forced to believe that the act as been
committed, and in justice to my own oath and
an in inred and iEsulted community, cannot
permit them 10 bail,
The point has been raised before me that there
is no eotdcnce Of their gasU in other words that
the fuding OF the grand jury is not such evi-
dence as wonld justify conviction. This adj
NIT to be law. But what is the object of this
application |: IS tlai The prisoners may learn
with what offence they charged, and tho
proof by which The charge is made ont, and have
Al opportunity oI rcnu'tliiS mat evidence ana
showing mitigating circumstances for the conl-
mission of the offence as charged against them.
The Judge hearing motion for bail. cannot
60 into an examination of the guilt OF the Dos
fendants He cannot decide that "a person
charged with crime by grand jury is guilll-,s
all that he can do is la,lni,ing the act 10 hay.
been cunnltted) 10 say whether they hive
proved such paatins circumstances as would
eniile them 10 bail. The finding Of grand jury
raises presumption that improper nc, has
been committed, and the law permits parties tn
make their detence-and that mercy may attend
justice directs "a jury 10 believe party Innocent
until his guilt is proved. Bat nothing more.
If we were to take the broad grounds that
parties charged with crime were innocent until
their guilt was proved, public opinion woula
not permit prisoner to rrnlain in our jails-, ur
grand jury system wond be farce, and al.
though III solemn session. bills of indictment
might be preferred against indiv duals the peo,
pie wonld say-you are unlawfully restrained
Of your liberties, and you shall be free. The
policy OF our laws requires that the solemn fnd-
ing of grand jury shonld be respected and Ia.
ken as true on al. preliminary questions of trial,
and if prisoners wish to take advantage of the
writ of IIabeas Corpus, they have the privilege
Of showing that the proof is not evident nor
the presumption great"