National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-04-21
TKE CASE OF WIZ. Il. ofTKAE.
H.as;l Reduced Z, $4,000.

Immediately On the Srrsning Of !es Criminal
Court, Judge Macarthur, yesterday morning,
Ar: Merriek, IN behei,f of WIN. II. Cttman. ma
application that he be admitted to bail. He said
that since the first petition was made Ottman
had stood trial, and the jury disagreed, and the
circumstances were entirely different from what
they were when the application was first made.
The State, from their standpoint, of the money
which they supposed to belong to the United
they claim is part of this puTloined fund. They
have attached, in money and property Of this de-
fepdant, %, GOO, leaving him q pauper. The
courts have determined that excessive bail is that
beyond which party is able to give: II party
impoverished. There is ' a rule, also, requiring
BAH equal If not greater, In amount TO the sum
stolen, but in this case the State has taken from
claim to have traced to him as part of the stolen
fund, and, consequently, they hold sutacieat 10
make good what bail might be required.
THE BAIL HERETOFORE
has been large that the prisoner eould not give
II, ana ne mas been compelled 20 lie in jail since
The Court. What was tie bail thenf
pSaict Attorney Wells. It was fixed at 1000
Mr.. Merriek. TIE circumstances that surround
ed the case then are entirely different from those
connected with it now. Neither the Court or the
state within any given time when the accused will
be brought on for q second trial. He is unable to
give the bail first SET and therefore to require it is
to demand excessive bail. Last week, in this
court indictments were found against several gen.
tlemen, accused of one of the most serious crimes
known to the law. He would say nothing condem-
natory Of those gentlemen, and sincerely trusted
that they were innocent but one of those accused,
General Babeock, had been immediately admit:
ted to bail in the sum Of $4,000. In the face Of
all the circumstances, the Court should not hold
ottman in bail exceeding 5000.
Mr.. Wilson asserted that the bail had been re-
dueed once on
THE APPLICATION OF THE DEFENSE.
He hoped his Honor would take the testimony
and review it. He did not believe he would en-
terrain the shadow Of doubt Of the guilt of the
clear as any case can be substantiated by circum-
stantial evidence. He did not think his Honor
should reduce the bail to the sum asked. If they
did the probabilities were that Gilman would not
ever give the Government the trouble Of trying
him.
Mr.. Merriek Oh, that is not fair. He was
here when he was accused, and heard that he was
to be arrested. He did not go away, but, on the
contrary, stayed and faced his accusers.
Mr.. Wilson. Well, that Is as fair as some Of
YOUR statements.
District Attorney Wells said that he knew of no
where o. 5hs an
charge Of stealing SO much money. The features
Of the ease show that Halleck stole this money,
Halleck had been convicted and 0ttman was en-
joying this stolen money.
EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED
showing that 7Ottman, in his business of four
years, had averaged receipts between S7j and
he was not poor man and could procure the bail
asked of the community entertaining confidence
Of his innocence. There was no change of circum-
stances that should induce the reduction OF this
bail TO the paltry sum asked for.
The case Of Gen. BabcOck was cited. He pre-
iah he should hear the Babcock case cited in some
form. That crime, great and serious as it might
be, was, under the law, simply misdemeanor,
n0F1N
the common jail. If the accused is guilty Of that
charge, then he should say it was one Of those
few cases that warrant an or post faefO law to
Mr.. Carpenter said that he had practiced crmi-
nal law for q number of years in Wisconsin, but
this was the most persistent, vindictive Prosecu-
District Attorney had convicted this defendant in
his own mind, but the jury failed to see II, and
mind. He submitted that d, 900 was reasonable
bail TO ask and any sum above that he considered
excessive.
HE BELIEVED ON HIS SOUL,
if he believed anything, that Gilman was inno-
cent of this charge and will prove it If given fair
fhe Court said he would dispose Of the case at
once. The question of fixing the bail had been
previously discussed, and it was his order that
The bail had been reduced. A subsequent appli-
cation he Overruled, not, however, without some
hesitation. He should be disposed to adhere to
the amount fixed If it was not that trial had
been had on this Indictment.
The jury did not agree on some OF the aver
ments in that Indictment, and he should not dis
cuss that question at this time 1t has been prac-.
tically demonstrated that the defendant was un-
able to give the bail first fixed. 1t was also
shown that the Government had been unable to
convince the Jury sufficiently to render verdict
against the accused so that the application comes
for q deeper consideration Of the case. He could
not fix the bail at 5000, but would modify the
first sum and set the bail at sl2, 900.
The counsel said they could give that amount.
District Attorney Wells asked that the names
of the bOQdSmen be given. Affilayits wOuld hc
furnished, and he desired to have an examination
made as to the responsibility Of these parties be-
fore accepting them on this bond
The papers were supplied as requested, and the
bailing will take place today.