The New York herald., 1871-11-29
The Case Of Hagerty and Baulch,
the Alleged Voucher Burners.
Motion to Quash the Indict-
ment Denied.
NO BAIL TO BE ACCEPTED.
The Iron Grasp Of the Law" Not
To Be Relaxed.


motions were made in General Sessions, before
Judge Beorord IN behalf OF the two alleged stealers
and burners OF the city vouchers, Hagerty and
BaucD. One motion was to quash the two lndict-
ments the other to admit them to bail. These mo-
lions were very ably argued by counsel for ana
against The questions involved were most impor-
taut to the interests OF the whole community, and
indeed excited the deepest public attention. After
q most careful hearing OF the arguments OF counsel
1ro and con Judge Bedford reserved his opinion
Tnat opinion he yesterday delivered. denying both
motions. The strong hold the City Judge has taken
upon the confidence OF the citizens OF New YORK Will
be strengthened by the fearless stand he has again
taken in support OF the administration OF justice and
the vindication OF the law.
JUDGE BEDFORD'S DECISION.
Tho Grand jury have found two indictments
against Hagerty ana Baulch one for an alleged
burglary and the other for al alleged larceny. The
pri oners through their counsel, now ask this Court
frs, 10 quash the indictments and, failing In this
motion then they ask that they be batled. The
motion TO uuash is based mainly upon the ground
that there was not sufficient evidence before the
Grand Jury to warrant their finding true bill. It
ia well settled tnat Grand Jury are only to hear
evidence on behalf OF the prosecution, and that the
ndnr OF an indictment Is only in the nature OF an
inquiry or accusation which Is afterwards to be
tried and determined BY q petit jury; and the
Grand Jury are only to inquire upon their 0aths
whether there be SUFFICIENT cause 10 call upon the
party to answer 1t. 1t IS also laid down Dy nlgh
authority "thas Grand Jury ought TO be thor
oughly persuaded OF the truth OF an Indictment so
far as their evidence goes, and not rest satisfied
with remote proDabilities-a doctrine that might 90
applied
Again, 1t is well settled that un ess Grand Jury
are AS well satisfied OF the guilt Oi the accused,
against whom they are to prefer an indictment, as
they would desire to be nere they called upon
afterwards as petit Jurors upon the same evidence
10 convict, they ought TO DISMISS the bill For the
purpose OF this motion hold That the credloity
Of witnesses. the sulc.ency and insuniclency OF
tneir testimony, questions peculiarly anu solely
witnin inc province OF Grand Jury. And
HOLD THAT IF GRAND JURY,
after seeing tile witnesses and hearing their testi.
Inonv feel thoroughly persuaded Of the truth OF the
convictions are not based upon remote probabilities
they are bound under their oaths 10 indict Alter
Indictment found Il becomes the duty Of the Dis
trict Attorney to try the prisoners before petit
jury, wnere, tor the rst time 10 the legal proceed
ings against them, the great question OF guilt or In
unguesi .onaDly. testimony was presented to the
Grana jury, and upon tnat testimony they saw nt
10 Ind a true bll-thus asserting as u were, as
Grand Jurors TO this community, that the testimony
offered thoroughly persuaded them OF the truln OF
tne charge. This the Grand Jury had perfect right
to do, ana, having done 50, the Court sneuld not In
terfcre with their action.
The other grounds upon which counsel bases his
motion do not mink are well taken, and, there
fore, the motion to quaSh Is denied.
THE AQtION TO BAIL.
The prisoners, on being arrested, avatled them
Ssns exammatton ne' Tne ~ss.aation was mos1 nc
rough-the prisoners were Indeed ably deieIded ana
in person Jndse DowilSsine mags.rae oeioTs
WHOM tine Investigation was had-ater listening to
seeing as wed as hearing tue Witnesses saw lit to
commit the prisoners without bail, thereby assert
ing TO this community that he. under nIs oillcal
rpn n tttln "a n I'm -tirst
mat crime had been committed. and, secondly.
thai there WIS probable cause to mold the prisoners.
Grani Jury nave found an Indictment,
and the prisoners, through their counsel,
nHw senea with aeep asenson to the arrumens Of
counsel, and must say, that while conceGe his
eort III behalf OF his clients 70 be truly great yet
DO rot ind any reason why l should dlner from the
magistrate, VINO, after preliminary examination,
committed the prisoners without bail. II Is true
that the question ol Dal rests enLrey In the sound
and honest discretion OF the Court; and, in my
opinion. every Judge vested with TINS power should
WELD II fearessiy and honorabiy, having In view
the simple OBJECT oil dong rlsht--ever bearing In
mind that while justice Is done the state no njus-
tce should he done the accused. A most vlilanous
crime-stupendvus and gigantic In Its bearings
one which III It's character mas suled the FAIR fame
OF this great city, ouraglng society and making. as
srAsD AGHasT WITH AsToyrsHxEST,
Is alleged 10 nave been perpetrated. The prisoners
were arrested ana now stand indicted for tnat
crime. IL seems me, considering all the cIrcum-
stances and surroundings OF this case, were TO bail
the prisoners, and thus loosen IN the slightest man.
ner
THE IRON GRASP OF THE Law,
would not only prove recreant to my 0niclal oath,
but wouid lnueed lie trlnIug with the sacred rights
or society anu the stern demands Of Justice. Inc
motion Is therefore, denied. And yet while have
denied the motion TO admit TO bail lor the reasons
stated am free 10 say that these prisoners have
CONSTITUTIONAL right TO speedy trial, and should,
therefore, unquestlonaDly be tried at the earliest
possible day; for, In my opinion, longer delay in
TINS case will not only work severe hardship to
the prisoners, but can IN no say as far as can con-
ceiye, iur Der the ends Of Justice