Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-05-12
u . SrArEs or AMERtoA J u 3 District
Northern District Of Ohio, IS Court

The Defendant, John Watson, moves the
Court that he may be put on his trial to the Ju.
ry, on the plea Of mot guilty" without further
delay
In support of said motion the said John Wat
son upon his oath soys:
lst. That he was arragned before this trbu
nal on the Sth of December, A. D., 1858, and
plead " not guilty" to said indictment, aud de-
manded an immediate trial. AT the instance of
the U. S District Attorney the trial was at that
time postponed aud this defendant entered in.
20 a recUgnizance in the sum Of ono thousand
dollars for bis appearance in this Court on the
2nd Tuesday in March, 1859 Before that day
arrived however at the instance of the U. S
District Attorney, and for his special accommo.
datlon, further postponement Of tho trial of
defendant was had, by consent of defendants
Counsel, until the 9th day Of April, 1853, when
defendant duly appeared in Court and there.
after regularly appeared irom day to day until
the 10th day of April 1859 when, on motion
of the U 5 District Attorney, he was ordered
into the custody Of the U. s. Marshal for said
Northern District Of Ohio and was on the same
day last mentioned, by him committed to close
confinement in the County Jail of the County
of Cuyahoga, in the State Of Ohio, where be
has ever since been, and is now, restrained of
his liberty, aud awaiting his trial, upon no
other charge than that contained in said in.
dictment of rescuing fugitive from service
2ud. This atliant says it is not true that an
terror to the time when he was placed in close
confinement in the jail of Cuyahoga County
as aforesaid, he had ever contemplated a breach
of his recognizance voluntarily entered iuto
as aforesaid, and it is not true that he at any
time, surrendered himself in discharge Of his
said rccoguizance nor yet is it true that his
Counsel proposed to surrender him in discharge
of his rccoguizance on the contrary, this
aiiiant says that he should undoubtedly, at this
moment be at large upon his said rccognizauce
if he had not been ordered into custody as
aforesaid on the 18th day Of April aforesaid up
on the motion of the U. s. District (Atty) as
aforesaid
81, This afiiant further says, that the Jour
al entry of this Court, made ON the 9th day
of April aforesaid, so FAR as the same purporis
to show that this Defendant, in connection with
other individuals resisting under similar charge
surrendered himself in discharge of his recog-
nizance, was made under mistaken concep-
ton of the facts as they transpired, and so long
as said journal entry ,s permitted to stand iu
force this defendant will be unable, consistent v
with the preservation of his own self respect, 60
renew his individual reCOgnZance, or TO give
bail for his appearance at q subsequent term of
this Court. He must therefore contine to lio
] ia AlA uAltHs lG GulA nave Llt UtntIL OF speedy
| trial.
lth This ahiant SAYS further, that in addition
to the injury likely to be sustained by Delcn.
dant in his bodily health by a long continued
/ imprisonment in warm weather, he has reason
| TO believe that further postpOnemcnt of his
trial will lose him the benefit of a very ma
terial wi ncsSin the person of William d.
Scrimgcour who is fast wasting away hy
means Of a consumption, and ia by his friends
expected to live but short time. Said W ID
! Scrimgcour resides at OberIin in the County Of
Loran and can be brought into Court az this
ailiant is advised during any day of the present
or the next coming week. lie has hitherto
| since the commencement of this class Of trials
! been tOU unwelI W Ue UrOugnt Iar irom his
home
WATSON.
State Of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, ss
Sworn to before me by the said John Watson
and subscribed 10y him in my presence the ltl
day of May 1859.
JOSEPH s. GRANNIs,
Notary Public for said County
Spalding, Tlden aud Riddle, Att'ys for Dc.
lendant.
The Counsel upon both sides ondeavorcd to
make some remarks upon these two motions,
but the Court remarked that no explanation or
comment was necessary, as the first motion,
filed by the District Attorney was sufficient
and would for tho reasons set forth, be granted
The Court announced that the remainder oi
the cases, John Watson included, would be
continued until the July term Of Court
Mr.. RIDDLE then arose and remarked
Mr. RIDDLE.--With the indulgence of the
Court will call its attention to matter tc
which have already incidentally referred ant
| speak knowing the circumstances under which
| tt.ga ,lnF.,l,t,tu in, ha .,rf
jailor
No makes no matter who these parties are
no sort OF difference what the offence witt
which they stand charged nor where they re
slde--ot cOurse-noT how much or how littli
may be known to your Honor of their pissibl,
or probable guilt thorough the medium of III,
trial just closed. They are at present in th'
custody of the jailor under an order of thii
Court l think your Honor must be satisfied
that that order was made and embodied in thr
, journal under mlsapprohension of the facts
They are simply these. These parties wer
~ attendance upon this Court regularly au'
consta, -,tly, in obedience to the order Of tn
Ct ,, 'her own reoogniganpes in th
, sum Of one thousanH dollars each and were il
faithful observance of all I'c,a eohdili1Hs o. thoH
, recoguizances, Now ] need NO StoP mere
, discuss the rights of these defendants on W
one hltlb anu lhtflHhb1 VI tiAb poNolhhi, -
the other. Ordinarily recognizance is ampl
protection against custody oT arrest 50 long a
is conditions are not iniracted But ] do no
say,-no lawyer will attempt 10 sustain thl
when persons at large upon their recognzanoe
are here at the bar of the Court IN its prosenc
l.. on actual trial, IL is not competent for the Cou
TO order them into custody, when it become
absolutely necessary TO retain tbriT person b'
% wound the possibility Of escape. But | do VI
J. dertake to say here, in delerence to the decii
ion of the Court and to the profound learning
r the gentleman who oppeafs in behalf OF u
a Government, that heper before, anyl0heTe, was
i motion ever made 10 order man into cuBtod
N who was on bail, and constantly in the mo
n submissive obedience Of every condition Of h
n bond aud TO every order of the Court or sue
"a an order given, unless it was in such eIlRener
y of trial as have been referred TO- ! KNOW
all know--thAt it is customary to order on go.
# cause shown an increase Of the amount, Or q
y surities of bail, even when there had been
N infraction Of that already given But cerlsl
ly with respect to actual arrest they have u
,e right, that while they are IN full discharge
NJ the conditions of their Tecognizances, th6y ha
4 a ri ht TO expect that the government viii !
q spect, and that every one else will respect The
IN rights under IT, and If thst bail is insufficient
4 order iOI its increase can be made, but am ARE
~ never.
n. Nov il is said on the part Of the Cover
ment that these parties surrendered their
~ cognizanees and hence were taken into ca
,e tody wish TO avoid any question Of vera
in ty, comparative or unqualified