, 1876-01-28

one tla7s imprisonment or Quo ccnt pcnalty. In
tho discretion Of tho Court. That rAs tho great
difference hetnecn this statute and tho of,o pto-
riding for tho chses of dlsttIIoss. A,Hoht In
Vulnerable inatotrents h"i been returned
aEaihet tho fnttcr cEht4, but thoy wEta required
70 Hivn Ls.i n,oAlly 10 au nmontIt not c1coslng
9ih. 0I)0. and IN every ono Of those doiuaen.n tho
d'ttliar had tcon charged with felony. Every
stamra. and, Indirectly, rountnrfotlng and per.
turr, Thls uss defined 10 tho statute an a fe.
Uuy alu the renattY rla.:ed At from $500 10
4lo0G0 but not taas than $500. and from nna to
IN thetr cssen--tO lesz than olo ycara ttnpfitDn-
tnent and $500, together NTH tho forfeiture Of
their pelsonhi propcsty and The apparatus 1t
thor d'stittetics. lilo claau.ci that, HheEo n
tta discretion Of TIN Court IN ilnn iln1 l
ceut " to imprison h!sn one dss.
tho Government toqntrcd In that cars s50.tN,l
hall. while IN another Ia which there Via llluis
still require 45o,0t,0 ball, whicu HaA cut Of ali
proportion When tho seriousuosn OF lhe Charge
was takon Int0 consiaetatiun. There ~as mt Il
slngIo indictment sgainBs diatIllcr In which =
more so!ioun of1unse was no. charged than that
aganst Hesjng and Ilehm. lie could nut exact
U Heo tho IuBt.cs in tlIfg Ani contenlet Tint II
The dissi]ierB gavo only $4,000. ucaipg'. bail on
this indictment should not ba more ttaa $1,000.
TIE NATURE or THE EVIDENCE
Was ncxt 10 be co1Inidered. Col Jneeen claimed
that ali tue evidence produced bofore the Grand
jury tn the present c1Ht, aud Ae presumed
counsel would uot deny it. uas the evidence Of
so-called co-coitptlatofa and acccsaorles-mon
Who stand today soIf.confesHal criniiuals-tbo
motst evidence for any prosecution to rely upon.
Ths oaaen against the distiIlerB we're corloborat-
cd by tho strongest Kind Of evidence, records
lad bcpn piled upon recorda until there was no
reasonable I.s ', douot az to their guilt Col:
a5iionco ~ fat NJ Sir. lleaing vas concerned,
aud all thcro Was against him nn8 tho ovideuccB
Of parties Who Lad gonc before tho Grand Jury
md. upon . PROMISE Or expectation Of bcsug
1sehn' with having consplrod with them to DO
fraud tue Government. Not onIY had shey douo
this. hut they had como into Court and OPEN
ly PLEADED guilty TO The charge Of cob
sps'yI iii Ssr I'll 9 pf,,. which tho
large upon their own bail, not requiring my nd.
dltiOnAl amount, 40 thkt thor werc now at lxrGo
upon the original bal OF $4,000. Thfs wae the
picture as far ~ those mon Te1n concarned, and
now bis client must conn Into Court hnd giyo
flro Zines the amouut required OF shoso aelf-
confessed criminals.
Col. Jccssen inatanccd tho analogous case Of
GEN. HANCOCK,
indicted at st.. IoA1h aud asked why 10
COO CO. bst '''i whom bis ! cass ras S rosiIy moro
corious than That OF Losing. Admitting,
for The sake Of tho argument, tlat 1he chsrgos
against Dabcock woro true. that he had stood
uHed tho Ercut n.lncnca ot tiH position to further
tho nbiecs Of tho WhiaIIy Ring. Why ahould 10
bo allowed to 20 at large on 1000 b.il while q
man tn III inferior position, having nothing to
do With tho Executive part OK tl,e 0oTosnuent,
should be required to glvo hTo times Al much
bais7
There vaa auothor point to he considered:
TEE ABILITY or THE DEFENDANT
to procure bail. What might bo reasonable bail
for wealthy man would bo practically denial
Of tho right Of bail TO apoor innn. The Federal,
rs y7oll d tho State. Constitution .prorldod That
excessive bail should not DO required. Dir.
IIoe'ng VEIL, and Col. Juee9en rscsutao1 tho
Court know tt, poor man. WIN. Rsoperty ho
stances wonl1 tho Court impose e5o. 600 ball, and
probably oxpoao him to tho possibility Of having
10 80 to jnil for want Of aach bail On looking
at shn ind!ctmcnta moro closely. y Maa seen that
sl10000 altogether and tho giriug Of bail to
this amount, Col. JneAscn claimed, would
amount In Hesing' caao 10 dsn!nl Of tho right
of bail. That gum might 10 reasonable bull for
danger Tint Hosing would run away. In
conclusion, Col. Juesscn claimed that, on
tho three considerations argued, hc waa
outttled to reduction to at )csHt
o hs nsoeSH1af eSs1:1s s nea 4s
thor had coma into Court to plead guilty.
Whom Col. JueBson had concludel hs remarks
MI. Campbell skid tho hame objections to the
cxces9lSe amount OIL Dali Hoa1u AoIo 8ooo IN .Af.
| Kohm'a case.
MI. HouTELL
addressed tho Court 10 calm, dsgnlncd manner.
but at no groat !en3sb. lie uad:
Tho object Of bail ia, of conrHe, to procure Tho
presence OF the pa't,ce under indictment. and II
| shoull bo fixed ut such Al amount ID
tho dissertation of tho Court AZ 1Isi
accurc thor aNondhhce IL u tfno thst
The gravity OF tho charge il to ba takon into
confederation. and also tho opportunity Of tho
purity to furnish hail. slmpiy sAy to tho gen-
tioman who has Just made a. extended spoech
OH the subject that. II he thinks hc has disclosed
to tho Court all tile evidence III thin caHe ho Will
nd when he conlcs to trial, tint he il greatly mix
taken. don't propose 10 open tho caao for the
doysrnmnut any further .. tho pteeont tmo,
| Ut rourso the Court can kuoW nothing of thu
| casa in advance. III reference to the magnitude
OF tho charge. there hro great many counts in
thIs indictment. II tho Jury should find thcEc
ps,ttes guilty Of what would be sufficient to i'm.
prison thoso persons for tho rest Of their natural
lives I sAy thRt tho chnIEa III butl(clontly grave
| And futthay tisu ttiAt, may bo permitted to sas
that tho Court aiwayu ex,iccta tho prosecuting
oficog 10 saY how grave tho charge is; and we