Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-26

refused admission. He heard Haymopd's re-
mark to Williams. The landlord told Hill to
keep his (Hiips) door shut so as not to see
into room % when the door opened. Hill
refused to do it. Brown said the men in
" y We're armed, and some harm might be
done. The attorneys in the room when tbey
came out were intoxicated. Between and
IN the morning Jones was taken by SYM
pathizers with the assassins to Santa Paula.
Affiant believed, and does yet, that the attor-
neys for defense were tampering with Jones.
+. a. Rice's affidavit was read, substantial
ing part OF the same facts before related.
THE "sIGNAL ARTICLE.
Mr.. Hart then reviewed the argument as
to the article in the Ventura Signal and its
being the basis of Jones' and Hickerson's
statements, and argued that the article was
drawn from facts stated by Ferguson, and
contained nothing more than any one could
have known who inquired into the facts and
talked with the witnesses, and is but proof
that they told substantially the same story
uniformly OF all the main and material
facts. He declared that there was nothing
to shake the truth of Jones first testimony
against Sprague. A witness like Jones may
be believed in one thing and disbelieved in
another where the circumstances corroborate
the one statement. Unfortunately Jones
told the truth. Is it true More was muir.
dered, Jones says so. Was Jones one of the
assassins! Jones says so, and Mr.. Akers
saw him near there armed and Jones refused
to reply to Akers and hid his face and
changed his course. Is it true the barn was
burned? Jones tells how it was done, and
the circumstances all corroborate his story of
the killing. Where is the evidence to show
that Jones lied? He confesses, says he was
there, tells of the killing in all its details and
just as established by other testimony. Now
is it true that he told the truth as to Sprague
being there and being the leader. Shall it
be believed that he was there, and not
Sprague? Did the jury believe Jones was
there that Sprague was there, Was it not
proven Sprague said he would be there, and
that Jones would be there, and were not the
tracks of the assassins traced to near
Sprague's house! Why should Jones have
confessed if it was not true? A confession is
q terrible thing it is
NEXT TO THE CRIME
In its awfulness 1t fixes the stigma for
ever on a man. Here was man with
Iather and friends, and a young wife, man
withal to gave and the name of wife and
father to shield from shame-yet he is
moved to confess and does. Who believes
he would have done SO if it had not been
the truth. But Jones did tell the truth,
for he is corroborated by the story of Hick-
erson, breathed with his dying breath.
With the grave open before him, Hickerson,
passing away from all worldly things, con.
vinced of his approaching end, under the
double solemnity of his last hours and the
awful oath of the law, calling on the God in
whose fear he had been raised to witness his
truth-the God his religion Taught him he
must, in brief hour or two, meet and answer
TO for ell the deeds done in the body, with
life gone and no revenges to crafty.
with wife and family weeping at his bedside,
with the officer of the law warning him of
the oath of the law to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth-Hickerson proceeded
10 tell the story of Sprague as related to him,
and the awful threat to bind him to secrecy.
Who living shall now dare to say that this
lying man, protesting Christian, a man of
upright life, this man under the double oath
,f life and death, lied when he told of the
to murder More, and which all
the facts shows was carried out according to
The plans.
But Jones changed !; he fell into the hands
Of the defense. He was taken to room %;
he was sent off in the dead Of night he
to Curlee confi3entially as lie left
Why Why! Why was he in that room
Why the whisky, the beer, the cards? Why
the pistols in room %, with the attorneys
for the defense and the States witness over
whom the States clemency had been Extend
ed? Why did he recant, Why he swore
the other way just as he would had he not
confessed in the first place. That was the
natural way-7to deny, confession is the IN
usual way.
CONCLUDING FOR THE STATE.
A discussion here arose as to the value Of
the property sold by the witness Brown be-
fore he left Ventura, and MIR. Williams ex-
planned that the property was worth all
Brown got for it, to wit lot worth 81, 700
even to-day, and Mr.. Brooks denied the
statement that the lot will sell for 81, 700 TO-
day. Mr.. Williams replied that the jury re-
viewed all that question and passed upon it.
Mr.. Hart then addressed himself to the
matter of Judge Temples opinion as to Judge
Fawcett's proceedings, and claimed Judge
Temple sustained the prosecution; that the
bill of exceptions never was before Judge
Temple; that he never made q certificate as
stated that what he did do was to refuse to
certify and to advise the Supreme Court as
to what it ought to do. While matters con-
cerning the case were being heard bef )re
Judge Temple, Mr.. Raymond suggested that
he might bring an action to set aside the
judgment against Sprague on the ground of
perjury and fraud, and it was then that
Judge Temple replied, "No, if there is any
such fraud, if what you say is so, your resort
is to the Governor, who liz the true Chancellor
in the case" But Judge Temple never meant
BY that that the Governor was vested with
equity and judicial powers. Mr.. Hart was
willing to submit the case on that PROPOSE
Jon, and leave it to the decision of Judge
Temple on dispatch.
MIR. Raymond was willing to accept that.
The Governor said it made no difference.
He could not divide his responsibility with
my one. He must satisfy his own conscience
No one respected the Attorney General and
lis opinion more than he, but he could not
livide the responsibility with him or with the
Supreme Court or counsel. Yet if Judge
Temple agreed he had the right to review
Judge Fawcett's acts, it would be an opinion
or him to respect.
Mr.. Hart said all Judge Temple said was
n a conversation between Mr.. Raymond,
himself and the speaker, and was not given
ls an opinion, nor did he ever intend it to be
understood that he believed the Governor to
De in fact Chancellor in this case, nor did he
ind or rule ON errors committed by Judge
Fawcett
PERSONAL.
Governor Perkins-Why is the pardoning
power given the Governor?
Mr. Hart-Not to review the Courts, not
20 pass on legal questions, but to extend
clemency where in the conscience
If the Governor he shall deem it to be right,
md of that he alone must be the judge. Mr..
Hart concluded with a personal explanation
elative to dispatch published during the
and which he had characterized
IS untrue through misapprehensien of the
acts, but while correcting bimself in that
aspect he still held the dispatch to be incor-
ect.
Governor Perkins asked Mr.. Hart, after
warmly complimenting him on his presenta-
ion of the case, if he thought his position
epresenting the prosecution affected his
Iiews?
Mr.. Hart-No, sir.
Governor Perkins-Do you think, if sitting
s juror or as Judge, with the same facts |
,efore you, your views would be the same?
Mr. Hart-Exactly formed my opinion |
.fter study of the case before any hearing |
ike the present was dreamed of. All the |
labits Of his mind and life tended to make |
i'm merciful. Most of his criminal practice |
lad been in defending prisoners. He disliked |
o prosecute, and refused to run for the Office |
# District Attorney, not as was supposed |
,ecause he could make more at other practice, |
,ut because he disliked to prosecute and |
lways preferred to defend. His record |
would show that only last week he consented |
o FIVE or six judgments in criminal cases
,eing set aside, because he was convinced of |
rrors on the part of the District Attorneys |
n the cases. He had on entering his office !
esolved that he would not stand up in the |
supreme Court to sustain any judgment |
7here there was any act of the District At |
orney or Court which had in his judgment |
al Al