Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-24

tion. he declined-to entertain it.
Mr. Raymond protested that he had not
attacked the motives of Mr.. Hart, nor
was he to be drawn from his view of the case
by any such charges. He owned no news
papers. and so could not have attacked Mr..
Hart, but the latter now consented to sign a
stipulation for new trial.
MIR. Hart-Show me any authority for it.
Haymond-I take your consent.
Hart-Did not the Supreme Court say to
US such thing could not be-:
| Haymond-Yes.
Hart-Did you ever know of convict who
wouldn't consent to have a judgment set
aside?
Haymond-No.
Bishop-Did you ever know an Attorney
General to do it.
Haymond-No. / can show plenty of
cases here and in other States that the People
can consent to a new trial. l know some
law, think, but have no desire to show it
off. All l ask is, let the Supreme Court de-
| termine If there can be consent given to the
withdrawal of q remittitur. That is all we
ask now.
Governor Perkins-Didn't the Supreme
Court decide it had no power to withdraw
the remittitur?
Haymond-Yes but consent was not
mentioned. All he asked was to let the
point go to the Supreme Court, and if it held
adverse to him he'd pledge himself not to
again apply to the Executive for clemency,
and he'd bind his client likewise.
THE GOVERNORS VIEWS.
Governor Perkins here said that his view
was that party may be examined, bound
over, tried, convicted, and go up on appeal
and new trial be ordered, and in all the
proceedings every Court and officer would
have individual responsibilities, not divisible.
Whap the aac 70 tho Evactrftya on q
petition for pardon the Executive has an
individual responsibility. He can't evade it
nor divide it with the Attorney General or
any one else. In a proper case the Executive
should interfere, and it perjures itself If it
does not, when convinced o man has not had
fair trial, or has been the victim of preju-
dice or bias, or If new evidence comes to
light which if known and produced at the
trial would have changed the complexion of
the case and work the mans acquittal, or il
any of the witnesses OIL whose testimony his
conviction depended are impeached by new
testimony. He had deep and serious con-
viction Of the responsibility on him. 1t all
rested on him, and he could not il he would
divide it with any one. He wished counsel
to avoid technicalities /; they had desired to
be heard, and he wanted them to abide by
the evidence and show up, If it be so. any de-
velopments that did not go to the jury that
prevented a conviction.
Mr.. Hart said if such evidence could be
brought forward he would admit tia Sprague
ought not to be executed.
THE CASE OPENING.
Mr.. Raymond then addressed himself to
the question of the scope of the pardoning
power, claiming for it the widest field. and
citing the freedom with which it was exer-
cised in England prior to the time when new
trials begun to be granted. He then began
to read from letter written by Judge Hines
recently to Miss Hattie Sprague, in which
the writer states his belief of the innocence of
Sprague, and says that the people of Ventura
have changed position on the case because of
the recantation of Jones, the explosion of
Browns testimony in the Curlee case. the be-
lief that Hickerson was purchased, that hired
emissaries of the More brothers worked up
the case against Sprague by fraud and cor
ruption. During the reading of the letter q
hot debate occurred between Messrs. Hay.
mond, Williams and Brooks as to Judge
Hines, his position as to the case, the facts as
to the real sentiments of the people of Ven
tura county, and the question of the bias of
Judge Fawcett, who tried Sprague, and
whom Mr.. Raymond charged with
being bitterly hostile to the prisoner.
1t was by the act of Judge Fawcett that the
case of Sprague was never heard before the
Supreme Court on its merits, and that right
was as precious as the trial by jury and of
that right he had been deprived by the unac-
countable rascality of Judge Fawcett. If
he was deprived of that substantial right,
then the Executive ought to interfere as
much as if deprived of jury trial He
proposed to introduce testimony Of witnesses,
not in the Sprague trial. but in the trials of
other defendants now discharged and free.
EVIDENCE.
He offered in evidence records of the case
and on appeal in the Sprague cases.
Governor Perkins said he had before him
a transcript of the case as certified to by the
acting District Attorney, as required by law
to be sent up to the Governor in capital cases.
Mr.. Raymond said that it was not cor
rect one, and thereupon heightened discus
sion ensued, in which Mr.. Raymond said he
proposed directly to attack the certified
transcript and to contradict the certificate of
Judge Fawcett. He wanted to use the re-
porter's notes of the trial in the hearing, and
thereupon discussion arose as to the qualifi
cations and whereabouts of that reporter,
and Mr.. Williams openly attacked the notes
as incorrect and not reliable.
Mr.. Raymond pointed out instances which
he declared showed the falsity and prejudice
of Judge Fawcett's statements of the evil
dence, as for instance, concerning the testl-
mony of Juan Olivas, Judge Fawcett's docu-
ment says Juan Olivas was then examined,
but othing new was elected" when in fact
Olivas' examination was, as the reporters
notes disclose, long and important
Mr.. Williams-We don't propose to allow
Judge Fawcett now dead, to be attacked and
| Gbeled by reporters notes.
MIR. Haymond-I don't propose to hear
such threats.
| Mr.. Williams-But propose to make them.
Judge Fawcett told me more than once that
| the reporters notes were incorrect The
Judge took his own notes.
| Mr. Raymond Why, here Fawcett in
places leaves out the whole of the cross-exam-
| nation, and then again puts in all the cross,
and omits bodily the examination in chief.
| Mr.. Hart did not object to the reporters
notes going in, butdid object to their being used
to impeach the certified transcript of Judge
Fawcett, which the law required him to
make and came under all the soiemnity of
| the judicial oath.
The Governor said he'd often thought that
| if he had been Judge he'd hear all the case,
make up his mind as to the right, and then
tell one of the lawyers to hunt up the law to
| fit that Judgment, satisfied that it must exist.
| A wordy debate ensued between counsel as
| to the testimony in the Curlee trial ICON
sidered on appeal), and whether that case in
volved the points in the Sprague case. Mr.
Raymond put In the evidence In that case,
and claimed that the identical point passed
on by the Supreme Court in that case was
vital in the Sprague case, and would, if
passed upon, have secured for him an order
| for new trial. He read letter from Sher-
| idan. one of the jurors, and the most intelli.
| gent of them. He is now journalist in San
Francisco. The letter recites that without
Jones testimony he (Mr. Sheridan) would
not have found Sprague guilty, and that with
| his evidence destroyed there was rot evidence
to hold Sprague.
PETITIONS.
| He also presented petition signed by
| 1000 citizens of Sacramento county, and one
signed "by about everybody in Ventura
| county" asking Executive interference in
| behalf of Sprague, such as the Governor upon
examination should deem proper, etc.
| Governor Perkins said he had been in
| formed that the Ventura petition was signed
chiefly by squatters, and those in close sym
pathy with them. As to the Sacramento Pc
| tition, he respected that people, but thought
| he ought to give it little, if any weight, in
| contrast to that of Ventura, where the peo-
ple are presumed to know something about
| the case. Another debate here took place,
| this time as to the petitions and by whom
| thew were signed, and finally the Governor
asked Mr.. Raymond if he was trying a case
| under oath would he be influenced by public
expression, and Mr.. Raymond replied: No,
sir. Then said the Governor, is not my posi-
NJ o,,l @ha,,rr ~