The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1870-08-04

Elsewhere We have published sketch
of the main testimony both for the pros
ecution and the defencein the case of the
parties engaged in the Wesson affray. The
public have been advised that they were
committed to jail without benefit of bail,
and that when the case was brought be-
fore the Judge of the District, on writ |
of Habeas Corpus, he confirmed the de-
eision of the committing Court, and the
parties were remanded to jail where they
now are.
No impartial person can read this tes-
timony without concurring In our denun-
citation of the arbitrary and tyranicd &C
ton of the Court. By the Constitution
and Laws of the county, the citizens who
are in prison, are entitled to their liberty.
The Constitution declares that excessive
''bail shall not be required and all persons
'sshaIl, before conviction be bGilGbIe by safi-
''cic,,t securities ereept for capital offences,
''when the proof is evident or presump-
"tion great" In the case of these citi-
zens, the proof is "clear" that their of
fence was not only not ''capital, but they
acted purely in defence of their lives and
| their families and their property, after
notification that they were threatened and
when the assailants were in the very act
Of executing their diabolical Intentions
In the absence of officers to preserve the
peace, they were compelled to act in
| their own behalf, or submit to the whole
! sale massacre of the inhabitants and ''the
wiping or cleaning out" of the village. =
, They were entitled not only to aequital,
, but to applause Assuredly they were
not guilty of murder" and for the COM
3 mission of manslaughter, or any other
I caime of less degree under the Constitu-
ton, the Court had no discretion but to
grant bail. In the language of the Su-
preme Court of the State, bail in such
: cease is not mere matter of discretion
with the Court, but of right to the pris-
4 "oners."
O The following extracts from the decis-
! iops of the highest tribunal of the State,
! are conclusive, and will show how deeply
# these citizens have been outraged, in the
decision which restraints them in felon's
4 dungeon. In the case of Wray VS.. State
e Mississippi 80, Miss. Reports, 648-the
n Court said
Our minds are forced to the conclusion
that under the law which must govern the
Court in weighing the evidence, the charge
e of the murder as made by the indictment
n cannot be sustained, and this settles the gltes
ton as to the prisoners right to bail. 1t ii
!. neither required, nor proper, that we should
intimate an opinion, either as to the limo
cence of the accused if we entertain it, O.
{ as to any degree of manslaughter of which
IT he might be thought guilty. The question
e is unimportant so far as the present appli
J. cation is concerned, whether the party b,
e wholly innocent or whether the offence i
falling below the crime of murder, be at
= tended with aggravated circumstances
a the result in either case is the same the part
e is entitled to liberty; and the Court he's moth
n ing to do but to JOllOto the mandate of the Con
" stitution on this subject and admit the party Il
bail. The provision of the Constitution il
as follows: "That all prisoners shall, befor,
ID conviction, be bailable by sufficient secu
IS "curities except for capital Offences, wher,
2. ''the proof is evident or the presumption
''great." The inquiry is whether the proc
in this case is evident, or the presumption
!. great-that is to say, is the offence as shown
- by the whole testimony, one which mus
20 under the law be capitally punished, for i
ID so 1ehile a Court might in the exercise of
g. sound discretion admit party to ball. he Ger
70 tainly cOnld not claim it as a right. But i
the offence is not shown by evident proof
II or great presumption to be one for the com
'r mission of which the law infiicts capita
l. punishment, bail is not a mere matter of dis
TO- erection a0tth the Court, bat ofright to the pris
OnerS.
In the case of Beall VS.. State of Mis-
:. sissippi 80, Rep. 721.-the Court said:
We wish it understood that on applica
u tons for bail, we may grant the appllca
l. tons, eren in case achen the Jury might, an,
rs perhaps ought, on the same evidence, to rende
rs a uerdict of guilty for murder"
3 These decisions show that even in case
IF which should be capitally punished, tn
q. prisoner could be admitted to bail at tn
n discretion of the Court, but in all case
Sc in which the guilt is of a less grade thai
m murder the Court has no discretion
N under the Constitution, and is compete,
re to grant application for bail In tn
: case of the Wesson prisoners though
ct they acted in self-defence they are never
a. theless arbitrarily confined in prison TIL,
Dt proceeding is a violation of personal lib
le erty. And it is doubly criminal becaus
n its effect will be to invite other acts O
to violence by the ignorant authors of tn
i | riot