Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-23
THE QUESTION OF spRAGUE's GUILT OR
INNOCENCE.

lNNOI6-sSiS.
The Sprague case is in all respects SO
remarkable that its determination must
exercise no little influence upon the stand
ing of California in regard to the sover-
eiqnty of law. The crime for which the
defendant has been sentenced to die was
sincularly atrocious one. 1t was marked
by whatever of treachery and feroclty the
most malignant murder has ever been ac-
companied. 1t was alike cowardly, cruel
and deliberate. The deed was not COM
united in any sudden access of passion, but
it was the contamination of a conspiracy.
The property of the victim was set on fire
at midnight to lure him out of his house,
and when he appeared he was shot down
and riddled with bullets. The history of
the attempts to secure the conviction and
punishment of the assassins is stranger
light inculpating the defendant was of the
most convincing character. Indeed 1t
would be scarcely possible to cite case
in which the chain of testimony for the
prosecution was stronger or more COM
pletely connected. Three witnesses were
brought forward who testified to three differ
ent stages OF the crime. Austin Brown
related how Sprague had, some two weeks
before the murder, told him of the con-
spiracy to murder More, and described the
plan of operations decided upon. Jesse
Jones, one of the defendants, turned States
evidence, and gave full and minute ac-
count of the actual commission of the
crime. And n H. Hickerson, finding lin
self on his death bed, made a deposition
giving the substance of statement made
to him by Sprague some days after the
murder, in which the whole story was
told. Thus the prosecution rested upon
triple chain of evidence, each link of which
was self-supporting. The cogency of these
connected statements is so overwhelming,
when viewed by the light of the facts in
dependently ascertained, that we are con-
WINGED no sane and unbiased man could
fail to be satisfied by them of the guilt of
Sprague.
The defense must therefore impeach this
testimony in order to create the foundation
for any plausible theory on the side of
their client. They claim to have done
this with respect to jesse Jones, who on
subsequent trial to Spragues recanted his
former statements, and declared that he
had sworn falsely in the first instance. As
this young man had been left in the hands
of the friends of the defendant it is not
difficult to perceive that pressure may have
been brought to bear upon him. But the
real point to be determined is, whether
his recantation is compatible with any ra-
tional view of the circumstances. In the
first place he had been himself indicted for
completely in the murder. Ii he was not
guilty it is perfectly clear that he could
have had no motive for turning States evil
dence. 1t is not pretended that he had
any revenges to crafty against his CO.
defendants. On the contrary, they were
all his friends and associates What is it
that makes men turn States evidence
The obvious answer must be, the con-
sciousness of guilt, and the fear of convic-
ton. The idea that Jones would have
concocted the tale he told, had he been in
nocent, we must dismiss as preposterous.
Brt the impossibility of his having con-
cocted it is demonstrated by the fact that
he introduced to it details, the accuracy of
which has been proved, and which could
not have Eeen known to person who was
not present when the crime was committed.
We refer here to the circumstances of the
mare being tied to the tail Of the hay-wagon,
and to the tying of the murderers' horses
to the alder tree in the plain, near the
patch of cactus The defense have never
showed how Jones could have known these
facts without having been on the ground
1t is beyond their power to do so.
That Jones told the truth in the first in
stance and lied when he recanted, is the
only conclusion to which it is possible to
come. But putting his testimony aside
altogether, the evidence of Brown and
Hickerson is quite sufficient to convict
Sprague, and we have no Hesitation in ex-
pressing the opinion that all the efforts of
the defense to discredit these witnesses
have been futile. Nor must it be forgotten
that independently of this damning evidence
the whole surrounding circumstances point
unmistakably to Sprague as the leader and
protector of the murder. He was known
to have been on bad relations with More
In an alteration short time previously
he had openly declared that he would kill
More. Neither he nor his co-defendants |
were able to account satisfactorily for the
way in which they spent the night on
which the murder was committed When |
the scene of the murder was examined an /
empty shell belonging to Spencer rifle
was found near the body of More. There
was only one Spencer rifle in the colony, I
and that belonged to Lord, and had been |
lent to Sprague shortly before the murder.
The tracks of the horses ridden by the /
assassins were traced to the neighborhood 4
of Sprague's and Churchill's houses. These
facts all lie outside of the testimony of
Brown, Jones and Hickerson, and they all |
tend in the strongest way to confirm and /
oorrr bora 70 that testipopv
The statement OF Brown, detailing
Sprague's forecast of the murder, and that
OF Hickerson, relating Sprague's confession
of the deed, may be taken alone, without
any regard to the evidence of Jones, and /
together or separate, when reviewed in
conjunction with the independent facts
above named, they constitute an absolutely /
invulnerable demonstration of the guilt Of
the defendant. Nothing could shake them