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.

IL
motions were made in General Sessions. before
Judge Bedford behalf OF the two alleged stealers
and burners OF the city vouchers Hagerty and
BaulcD. One motion was to quash the two indct-
ments, the other to admit them to bail. These mo.
lions were very ably argued by counsel for and
against The questions involved were most impOr
tant to the interests OF the whole community, aud,
indeed, excited the deepest public attention. After
q most careful hearing OF the arguments OF counsel
Dro 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 or the citizens OF New York will
be strengthened by the fearless stand he has again
taken in support OF the administration OF justice aud
the vlndcatiOn 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 OJher for ah alleged larceny. The
pr oners through their counsel, now ask this Court
first TO quash tho indictments, and failing In this
melton, then they ask that they be batled. The
motion to quash is based mainly upon the ground
that there was not sufficient evidence before the
Grand Jury 10 warrant their finding true bill. 1t
Is well settled that u Grand Jury are only to hear
evidence on bena OF the prosecution, and that the
finding OF an indictment Is only in the nature Of an
inquiry or accusation which Is afterwards to be
Grand Jury arc only to inquire upon their oaths
whether there be SUFFICIENT cause 10 call upon the
party to answer II. 1t Is also laid down by high
authority "tha5 Grand Jury ought to be thor
oughly persuaded OF the truth OF On Indictment so
far as their evidence goes, anu not rest satisfied
with remote pr0DaDllities-a doctrine that might DC
TO VERY OPPRESSIVE PURPOSES"
Again, 1t is wei! settled that, un ess Grand Jury
against whom they are to prefer an indictment, as
they would desire to be we're they called upon
afterwards as petit jurors upon the same evidence
10 convict they ought TO dismiss the Oil. For the
purpose OF this motion hold That the credl0ility
or witnesses the suhic.ency and lnsurlclency OF
their testimony, are questions peculiarly anu solely
witnin the praylnCe or Grand Jury. And
HOLD THAT IF GRAND JURY,
after seeing the witnesses and hearing their teSE-
nony feel thoroughly persuaded Of the truth OF the
charge TAI their testimony goes, and that their
they are bound under their oaths TO indlct. Alter
Indictment found II becomes the duty Of the DIS.
trlct Attorney to try the prisoners before petit
ngs against them The great question OF guilt or In
nocence 10 he inquired into. In the present case
Grand Jury, and upon tnat testimony they saw ht
10 1iud q true blll-thus asserting, as 1t were as
Grand Jurors to THIS community, that the testimony
Olered thoroughly persuaded them OF the truth or
the charge. This the Grand Jury had perfect right
to do, ana, having done So the court sneud not in
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 MQrI0N TO BAIL.
The prisoners, on being arrested, avaiied them
selves oi their statutory pr,vllege-a preliminary
examination. The investigation was most tho
rough-the prisoners were Indeed ably defended ana
the people were represented Dy the District Attorney
In person. Judge DowlDg-tne magistrate before
whom the investigation was had-alter listening to
all the testimony and having the opportunity OF
seeing wed as hearing the witnesses. saw tit to
commit the prisoners without bail, thereby assert
ing TO this community lhat he. under ms Official
oath, lOund from tile testimony before nm-first,
SecOnulV
that there Was probable cause to mold the prisoners
the o,en Of ho an azst5s aae
and the prisoners, through their. counsel,
now ask ts Court to BAL! them
counsel, and must say, that while | conceGe his
ell ort IN behalf OF his clients to be truly great yet
magistrate, VINO, after q preliminary examination,
committed the prisoners without bail. 1t Is true
that the question Dal rests enLlrely In the sound
and honest discretion OF the Court; and, IN my
opinion, every Judge vested with this power should
WELD It iearlessiy ana honorabiy, having IN view
the simple OBJECT OF doug rlght-cver bearing In
mind that While justice Is dOne the State no injus
tice should be done the accused. A most vlilanous
crime-stupendUus ana gigantic In ITS bearings
which III lis character mas sullied the fair fame
this great city, Outraglng society and making as
STAND AGHAsT WITH AsToNIsHMENT,
Is alleged TO nave been perpctratel The prisoners
were arrested ana now stand indicted for tnat
crime Ii seems TO me. considering all the clrcum.
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 Ofnclal Oath
but would indeed be trlflng 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 Tor the reasons
stated, am free 10 say that these prisoners have
constitutional right TO a speedy trial, and should,
therefore unqucstlonaply be tried at the earliest
possible day; Tor, IN my opinion, longer delay in
TINS case Will not only work severe hardship to
the prisoners, hut in no way as far as can con-
ceive lurt her the ends of justice.