Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-25
sPRAGUEs LIFE.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST rAGE.l

o,ier of Judge Fawcett declaring that the
Hill did contain the reporter notes and the
side.hsr remarks of counsel. Remember
ets illness Post swore that before the notes
i.st he hands the erasures were made by his
bard He would not say he talsi led, but he
xyas mistaken, and the record shows IL De-
vond question, and at this late day 1t proves
how time serves the memory aud that no
+r;aI or examination like this can be
S 81 had before the Executive. MIR. Hart
bere read MIR. Haymond's affidavit to
how that nowhere in it is there anything but
a shoring that there was no negligence on MS
,,art md that the failure TO file bill within
p s,as NOT his fault That the draft OF
a. Hill was filed within the twenty days.
Wr Hat called attention to the tact that
+bar tLare could have been no era5ures as tes-
ti6cd to. and Post and Raymond were mi
token. Reading again from the sfhdaylt, ne
~a1iad attention to the fact that after the Ill
inc within the twenty days limit, the afhd a,
t-it rec;ted that the Judge OBJ ecteo 10 the Dill
as containing testimony which should not ap-
a.. as and that thereupon, says the affidavit,
cSnnsel faffiant) struck out the Objectionable
matter That. said Mr.. Hart, was when the
arosnres were made, and not at the time
6stailed by the witness, who swears he made
tbsm before filing, and this proves, said Mr..
Hart that the charges against Judge Faw-
Satt were
TScALLED FOR AND UNJUST,
f,rraI .nd untrue. though undoubtedly coun-
al Lalieves them true. But he would show
tbat II was impossible for Judge Fawcett to
have settled the bill The innocent should
not be executed because OF the error and ne,
elect of counsel, nor on the other hand should
the guilty man escape because OF the olun-
ders of his counsel There can be no such
Japo1paad hprn gO
yehemently, without remedy being found IN
the Courts. What is the certificate and the
Judgment The Judgment is the solemn de-
termination of Court under the Constltu-
tion and the law; certificate IS but the
statement of a judicial officer. To say the
indpment can be reviewed and the certificate
NOT is to place the creature above the crea-
tor. Absolute verify is not imported by the
yoere certificate, but absolute verify Is i'm
ported by judgment Now, IN the case OF
the People VS.. Smith in the same volume with
this case, but decided before it and known to
the bar, the very point was decided at issue
u this case. The Supreme Court SAID the
District Judge was fully justified in refusing
to settle the bills of exception fled on the
18th and 18th of September. The first was
mere skeleton, the second was reprehenslbie
as defined in People vs. Getty, and for re-
fusing to do what the Supreme Court
of the State says he could not do,
Judge Fawcett is denounced in his
grave and his name blackened before the liv-
ing. Judge Fawcett certified to bill OF ex-
oeptions. which took this entire proceeding
before the Supreme Court, and the whole
case did go there despite all that Is said. Act
ing on his judicial oath he certified certlti-
cate which was as binding on him as j Judge
and man, as was counsefs affidavit on his
ltqtlS n notice
was given of the bill to the District Attorney
that it contained statements which were not
correct. These facts were openlS certified by
the man on the bench, under the solemnlty
of his official oath, and they show that coun-
sci was wrong and the Judge was right, and
that there was no justification for the
charges heaped upon him, mingling his
name with corruption, fraud and villalny.
Mr. Hart went on to read the certlncate IN
full, and dwelling on the facts reclted by the
certificate, and among others that defendants
counsel had been guilty of negligence In
making his bill of exceptions, and that he
had settled bill of exceptions. Now the
record did go up, and he, Mr. Hart staked
his word on it, that the Supreme Court did
examine the case. and it did find that Judge
Eawcett was right. The very things counsel
complains of did go up to the Supreme Court,
shat the Court did have them before it, and
did, in the light of all these, refuse to
do as defendant asked it to do, to work his
discharge.
AND NOW SHALL THE GOVERNOR
Sitting here, pass upon thu question whether
The Supreme Court was in error? Shall he
undertake to declare that the decision of
Justice McKinstry is not based on the wis.
dom and justice Of the law? Shall one not
6tted by position aud power to decide that
She Justices of the Supreme Court have not
announced correct legal doctrines? No. The
Judgment of the Supreme Court the tlnal1ty
of the law of the case, bar, sealed book.
But the Supreme Court declares no notice to
the District Attorney was given Of the pre-
,entation of the bill. That is no technicality,
It is a wise provision of law requiring notice
to both parties of all proceedings. Counsel
clamors for due process OF law; let him apply
i on MS side when he sought to impeach the
judgment of the Court-he did not give the
people the rights due them by due process OF
law; he gave the people no notice of his at
tack. The defendant was arraigned by due
process, tried by due process, convicted OF
the murder of I. Wallace More by due pro-
cess. and he then attacks the Judgment of his
conviction for his murder OF More, he fails to
notify the people of his attack, as the Law
declares and it is a righteous thing that
notice is required, in order that the peoples
attorney may examine the proposed bill and
exercise his right to offer amendments to the
bill. Isn't that mere fairness and justice !?
Now the Supreme Court says the failure to
give notice made it the absolute duty of Judge
FaWcett
TO REFUSE TO SETTLE THE BILL.
1t was his duty to refuse, because he had no
particle of power to do as asked. Is he
villain because Eugene Fawcett refused to do
what he had no power to do? Is it
true the murderer shall go unwhipped
because Eugene Fawcett refused to do what
he had no power to do? If so, away with the
law and rganized society for the protection
of life and home, and let every man know
that he must defend himself The next aues-
ton is, Is Sprague guilty? That is the ques-
ton under any circumstances. Sprague was
heard on appeal from this Judgment, and so
far as the Governor is concerned, it was decided
on It's merits. He was heard in Supreme
Court twice, was there on the merits, and the
Court held: "In this case the District Court
was justified in denying continuance" etc.
{Mr. Hart read the points decided by the
Supreme Court to show that the case was
heard by it on bill of exceptions) So
Sprague was fairly tried by jury, had his
bill of exceptions and his appeal. was heard
BY the Supreme Court, was condemned and
ordered to suffer the penalty of his crime, and
now the Executive is asked to re-
view all the proceedings, and by its
pardon determine all the questions
of law involved, in order to save Sprague.
Never has Governor attempted to grant
new trial, never attempted to review errors
in law, never to reverse DEGREES of Court for
errors Of law. To whom is given the power
to correct errors OF law? TO the Governor
No; but to the chief tribunal Of the land
alone. Are the criminal laws to 90 unen-
forced because criminal refuses TO appeal to
the appellate Court, and when his error has
barred him, go to the Governor and ask him to
try the alleged error in a court unheard of
and unprovided by the laws? But if the
Governor had the power to review he (Mr.
Hartl would be willing to trust the record to
review. There is no error in it, and he could
show it before Court with power to review
it. but should refuse to discuss it before an
officer without power TO review. The Court
below did instruct the trial jury that the
TESTIMONY OF HIcKERsoN AND BROWN
As to the statements made by defendant to
them were to be received with suspicion and
doubt
Governor Perkins-Was the jury SO in
structed?
Mr.. Hart-Yes, sir; and I will read the in
struction to you. (Mr. Bishop and Mr.. Hart
read. And so the jury had the statements
before it, with warnings from the Bench, and
yet condemned the defendant. Aud the jury
was instructed also as to the testimony of
} ones g that he was an accomplice, and that
the admission corrupts the source from which
il comes, and that the jury must look on it