Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-21

Governor Irwin. and which was published in the
winter Of 1879, that the testimony of H ckorson
and Brown was false. and that Hickerson was under
the influence of drugs at the time he gave his testi
mony, and might have been improperly influenced
and asking for time within which to prove those
facts
General Hart-The most obvious answer to that
question is that they have bad from the time OF the
fling of the petition before Governor Irwin in 1879
until the present time, and toy made no effort to
establish any such thing. The only reason that
could be assigned why they should fail to make such
an effort is that il they had tried to establish such
facts they must necessarily be fole1. As to Kicker
son. his cross examination will show the condition
of his mind at the time he gave his testimony. He
| was then, 1t is true, sick and
| ON HIS DEATH BED,
And could have had no reason to say anything
against any living man. What motive dying man
could have for peruring himself in order to convict
an innocent man of murder, is thing that is be-
You'd my understanding, and that he should have
desire to do such thing is too impossible to be be-
lieved upon the mere assertion of an attorney
ardently battling for his clients life liberty. Mr..
Hickerson subjected to very severe cross-ex'
| animation, and his deposition given, and he
| explained fully why he desired to have his testi-
mony perpetuated. He first approached
on the subject by minister by the
name Of Taylor, and his attorney, Mr.
Blsckstock He then refused to say anything about
the matter. He afterwards sent for his attorney,
Mr. Blackstock, and told him what he knew about
the matter. Thinking he said, that his affidavit
would perpetuate his testimony in Of his death,
he asked Mr.. Blackstock, who Notary Public,
to write down what he had to say and swear him TO
it. in order that in case of his death before the est
mony could be properly taken, his statement might
be in some way benefcialy used for the purpose OF
bringing the criminals to justice. In that statement
he gave the same evidence that he afterwards did
when examined and cross examined regularly for
the purpose of taking his Deposition and if anyone
has any doubt as to his
PERFECT MENTAL soUNDNEss
At the time the statement made, it Is only
necessary for him to look at the rigid examination
to which Hickerson was subjected By ingenious
counsel for the defendant and to note the consist
ency of all his statements and the manner in which
he adhered what he believed to be true and right
in order to convince himself that he could not have
been influenced to state anything excepting what
was true.
Reporter-But it is said that Sprague has had no
fair trial in the Courts and that the full record OF
his case was never properly presented to the su-
preme Court.
General Hart-My answer to IL is That Is mat
ter that is comparatively unimportant. An appi
cation for Executive clemency must be based upon
the innocence of the defendant as shown by the evil
dence and not upon mere technica tiles. If every
person whose attorney neggently failed to present
his case properly before the Supreme Court were to
be entitled to pardon as matter of law or justice
the cheapest way for every man to get clear OF
crime Of which he was evidently guilty would be to
employ attorney who, through either ignorance
or design, would fail TO have bill OF exceptions
settled or to properly file serve notice OF appeal
The defendant Sprague was
REPRESENTED BY BRILLIANT ATTORNEYS,
Who had had long practice and who possessed great
learning in criminal matters. The record of the
case from beginning end shows that the effort was
not to obtain fair trial, but to obtain delays in
order that something might he accomplished which
could not be accomplished upon fair presentation
of the questions of fact to judicial tribunal The
presentation OF bill Of exceptions for settlement to
Judge Fawcett was done in a manner that indicates
that this is true. bill Of exceptions was
not prepared, but a mass OF testimony, en-.
bracng questions and answers, etc., Gov
ering nearly 1900 pages OF closely written
matter was presented to the Judge for settlement as
bill OF exceptions. This practice had frequently
and properly been reprimanded BY the Supreme
Court and counsel for Mr.. Spra2ue knew that to be
true, or they must be presumed to have known 1t;
but worse than all, no notice given to the
District Attorney Of the presentation Of the bill of
exceptions and none Of the modes prescribed by
law were pursued. After the Court that tried the
cause had pointed out to counsel for the defendant
the kind Of bill Of exceptions that necessary
he did not present to the Court for settlemen
bill conforming TO the views as expressed by the
Court, and though
OVER TWO YEARS HAVE ELAPSED,
No bill OF exceptions has been presented to the
Court for settlement excepting this large mass of
testimony. When the case went on appeal to the
Supreme Court from the order refusing 10 settle
this mass of stuff as bill OF exceptions, the Su-
pre1ne Court said that the Court below had acted
right Nothing was afterwards done in the case
excepting that when the application was made to
fix the time for the execution OF sentence that
opposed, and the order was appealed from where it
was made. 1t was reversed by the Supreme Court,
and the matter remained again for some months
without any steps being taken by defendant towards
obtaining settlement of any bill OF exceptions
upon which the case might be fully heard before the
appellate Court.
REPEATED APPEALS,
Evidently for delay, have been taken, and 1t would
that gnizing the fact that the reversal OF
Judgment could only result in new trial and Sec
ond convict Of the defendant, Sprague's counsel
have purposey failed to get the case properly IN the
Court In order that the circumstances might aid
them finally in his application for pardon This Is
the inevitable conclusion when the facts are viewed
in the light Of surrounding circumstances. His at
torneys were numerous and able, he being repre-
sented by J. D. Fay, Greed Raymond, W. W. Allen,
j. D. Hines, j. n. Brooks and n. C. Bedsoe, and il
would be harsh presumption that those attorneys
some of whom are celebrated for their skill in thu
management Of criminal cases, did not all together
possess sufficient familiarity with the Penal Code Of
California to enable them to prepare bill OF excep-
tons and perfect an appeal in criminal case.
Reporter-But they say that Judge Fawcett re-
fused to settle bill OF exceptions and thereby pre-
vented them from being hesrd; is it so?
General Hart-That is impossible. bill OF ex-
ceptionS, properly preSenteu nust ue seteeu W so
Court and if he refuses to settle it he will be COM
PEELED to do so by mandamus. Such has been done
in this State and was done in the of the People
on relation OF Peter Smith against Phil. W. keyser
f53 Cal 1881. The only conclusion to be deduced
from the facts is that the apparent effort to be heard
in the Supreme Court was sham, and that the de-
sire was to use It on the application. for pardon.
IF THIS BE NOT TRUE,
The only other conclusion could be that their failure
to perfect bill was the result of negligence or ig-
norance on the part Of the attorneys who repre-
sented him. am inclined to the former view.
because l am acquainted with the ability OF the
several lawyers who represented Mr. Sprague.
Reporter-what Is the sentiment Of the people, as
far as you gathered It, In Santa Barbara and Ventura
counties?
General Hart-In Santa Barbara, those with whom
converse1 outspoken in expressing their con-
yction Of the guilt Of Sprague and their desire to
him properly punished. IN Ventura county many
citizens conversed with upon the subjest, told
| me that there person there who had any
doubt to Sprague's guilt, and expressed desire
that he should be punished accordngto the sentence
pronounced by the law, but, like Jones, they were
afraid to testify aloud. Outside Of those who are