Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-26
THE sPRAGUE CASE.
THE GOVERNOR coMMUrEs THE SEN.
TENcE TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

The hearing before Governor Perkins Of
the application of f. A. Sprague tor pardon
was resumed at 9:20 A. N. yesterday. The
arguments of counsel occupied until P. NJ,
with no intermission. Attorney General
| Hart spoke until 11:40 A. NJ, and MIR. Hay.
| mond from that time until o'clock
| Mr. Hart spoke first, resuming his argu.
ment at the point where it had been suspend
ed the evening before. He referred again to
the remarkable fact that Sprague on the
stand had admitted he had had conversa-
ton with Austin Brown as to the proposed
killing of More. He read from the
testimony to show it. Sprague said More
was going to sue the settlers and get them
out, and Brown said he could not do it, and
then asked Sprague if it would not be a good
idea to string up his carcass to tree. Sprague
says he replied it would not do /; that when
men 60 to law the way is to fight 'em with
law, beside the men who would do it would
be almost certain to be caught. Now this
was sworn to by Sprague himself, but is
never revealed by him until Brown turns and
testifes against Sprague, and then the latter
says 1t was Brown and not he who wanted to
kill More. 1t does appear that Sprague and
Brown then did talk of the killing Of More.
Heconcedes it-shows it to have been matter
of thought. The only difference between
Brown and he is that Brown first tells of it.
That is a point conclusive of the case, and
shows the prosecution to have taken the right
criminals into custody.
BUT MR.. AKERs' TESTIMONY
Is essential. Jones claimed that he and
Curlee had been at Pole canyon all the night
of the murder. But Mr.. Akers swears he
met Jones and Curlee on horseback that
night near More's house, with guns on their
shoulders and sacks in their hands, and Akers
is unimpeached. Proof of proposed plans
predatory to a murder are always proven true
on statement when the sequel of events
shows the alleged plans were substan-
TALLY followed out. But the record shows
that More was not the bad man the assassins
claimed. The record shows that long prior
to the killing of More, Sprague tried to mur-
der him, and Sprague's own testimony shows
this and establishes the deep plan to kill
More. Mr.. Stokes testifes to his being with
More one day examining ditch, when they
met Sprague, and the the latter drew up his
gun and threatened to shoot More if he ad-
vapced along the ditch. More replied, "Oh
no, you won't shoot" and went up to Sprague
and turned the gun aside by the muzzle, and
shot off one of the barrels and then took the
gun from Sprague and tried to discharge
the other barrel. In the struggle for the
gun the stock was broken. Then Sprague
went behind some bushes, and Stokes and
More walked away, but witness saw Sprague
from behind the bushes pointing pistol at
More, and he was swearing he would kill
him. More turned to walk back toward him.
but Mr.. Robinson came up and interfered,
and warned Sprague not to shoot. All these
things show that Sprsgue had the disposition
to do what he says he told Brown he would
not do. Here was previous attempt to kill.
More took the gun and fired it in the air. He
might have killed Sprague if he chose, buth
the air, though Sprague had tried to and
threatened to take his life. In most
cases the previous attempt and threat
would be damningly sufficient to fix
the subsequent killing on the man
who made the threat and previous attempt.
But why go over all these grounds? The
twelve jurors had all the facts before them.
They judged of the facts and the witnesses,
and yet the Governor is asked to review the
facts. The Governor is not responsible for
the verdict of the jury. The jurors alone are
responsible for it, and they do not recede
from that responsibility. What, then, are
we to do? Why, to look into the record and
see if anything is shown there why the ver-
dict shall be set aside or has there been
evidence brought TO light on which the Jury
did not pass Whereas that new evidence
Has there been single line of it? Has the
defense brought single new fact to the con-
sideration of the Governor? No! Then the
duty of the Governor is plain-to refuse to
set aside the verdict Of the jury, sworn to try
the cause truly and well and upon the testi-
mony before it,
THE ROOM AT BROWNS HOTEL.
He had been informed that Hall, the de-
tective, had been threatened as joke if so,
the prosecution wanted no advantage taken
by his affidavit it wanted no advantage by
false or mistaken view of detective. He
then presented the affidavit of W. T. Will
iams an attorney for the prosecution ever
since the arrest Of McCart, and who was attor-
ney for part of the settlers against More
in the land litigations. McCart was re-
leased by the magistrate, and the Grand Jury
refused to indict. Soon after his arrest,
Jones signi6ed his willingness to tell and
confess the whole plot, Akers having
told of Jones and Curlee being seen
near More's that night. Affiant told
Jones his privileges and the law relative to
the States witness, aid Jones went before
magistrate and told the whole story freely.
He was removed to the Santa Barbara Jail
for better quarters, and to avoid being kept in
cell with his co-defendants. Jones testified
on the trial freely and of his own will, and
was discharged, being used as States wit
ness. Jones of his own consent was placed
in charge of an old friend and associate for
his own protection and to prevent his being
played upon. After the adjournment of the
Court, Jones applied for aid he wanted to
go to his fathers, wanted financial aid. A.
P. More refused to aid him with a cent, and
told him if he broke faith with the State
he'd see him, Cd d-m him, punished for
perjury Affiant told Jones the Mores
would not aid him, and affiant advised Jones
to go to Santa Barbara, and told him he be-
lieved he was in danger to live there longer
Jones one night met afiant and
told him that Mr.. Brooks, one of
the attorneys for the defendant, had
told him he wanted to talk with
him. Affiant became suspicious and got
man to watch Jones, and he was seen talking
to W. W. Allen for the defense, and he was
seen to go to Aliens room, in Browns
Hotel. Afiant alarmed friends of the pros
ecution, and he went then to Aliens room
and knocked and told those inside that Jones
was in that room, and he wanted to see him.
Those inside denied he was there. Affiant
insisted that Jones was there then voice
replied to question of affiant, "Well, Bill,
we don't want you in here now" Affiant
SET A WATCH ON THE ROOM,
And himself watched from Hills room
Finally Brooks and Fay, for defense, entered
the room, pistols, beer and cigars were sent
up to the room, AMI Brown, the landlord,
tried to get affiant to leave the building. Pres
emily Greed Raymond entered the room and
after a time came out and affiant asked him
where Jones was, and Raymond replied he
wasn't the keeper of the id s-n of b-h.
Subsequently affiant sent messenger to the
room to ask Jones to come to Ayres' Hotel
and see attorneys for the prosecution, and the
landlord told the messenger to look out, as
the men in the room were armed, and he'd
get hurt if he fooled around there. Subse-
quently friends of the defense took Jones to
Santa Paula, and he became reconciled with
his father-in-law, and lived again with his
wife, and became the friend and associate of
all the assassins and their sympathizers.
WITH THE STATES WITNESS.
Governor Perkins-Is not this neutralized
by the fact that the prosecution took Jones
from the jail and talked with him.
Mr.. Hart-By no means. It is often DONE
All the Sheriffs ask prisoners if they are
guilty. If force was used on Jones it would
be easy to show it by the Sheriff. Prose-
cutting attorneys always counsel with prison
ers turning States evidence. 1t was done
over and over again day in and out in the
Troy Dye cases. 1t is right and proper and
raises no presumption of force or duress
used. The attorneys for the people must