Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-28

Isl and llS2 OF the Penal Code-was taken up.
Inc oiil had been reported from the Committee
On judiciary with majority and minority reports.
Inc special order for P. NJ, Senate Bill No. CO.
An Act to provide for removing officers Of mining
corporations bs the shareholders having mnjority
OF the shares of stock thereof eectrg other OF
hcers 10y Mr. Hittel)-was postponed until to-mor-
row at p NJ.
Tie Secretary read Senate Bill No. 90 . second
Time atlength Amendments Of Committee Ju-
dietary adopted
The question came up on the engrossment Of the
3Ir. WENDELL Il move that the bill be indefinitely
postponed
Mr. JOHNSON would like to hear from the gen
tieman
bir HIrELL called for the reading of the minor
lty report which was read by the Secretary 1t was
argued by Senators Hittell, Wendell and Sattcr-
WHITE ami held that the present law gave all
sary protection to defendants, ard tn the proposed
change world only further delay in TIE exect-
ton of the laws
Mr. HTrELI said that far as the first section OF
the Dill was concerned, amending Section llSl of
the Penal Code, that had been already amended bY
the Senate by adding " or information" after the
word Indictment" But the purpose OF this BILL as
he understood 1t, and as was admitted by the Sen
ator who introduced it by request was to provide
new trial for Atr. sprague, and it was therefore
known az the Sprague bill OF course the Legisla-
ture would be inhibited ub.gr the Constitution from
granting new trial transferring the case and
the only way would be By making IA general law,
passed by the Legislature the effect would be that
in every case OF felony the defendant at least as he
understood it, would have the right to open up the
case anew after the motion for trial had been
decided and denied 1t would place it SO that there
could be six trials in almost every case 1t
seemed to him that under all the circum-
stances the defendant sufficiently protected Ii
mignt be that in this State there are few cases in
which innocent men have been convicted though
he knew OF hone personally. Ii this bill became "a
law 1t would be very easy, after the witnesses in
criminal case are scattered for defendant to come
IN and say that he was convicted by perjury or
fraud and it very likely that he could find
some witness that would swear that he was SO con.
victed. 1t would create delays for an indefinite
time instead Of cutting short the DELAYS of which
the people have complained. He thought that if
any innocent person had been convicted and was
suffering punishment, the proper pace for him to
apply was TO the Governor. He was therefore deci-
dedly and unequlyocally opposed to the bill
Mr. SEARS sad that in looking the bill be was
very much surprised indeed that such an Act should
be presented to the Senate. The bill proposed 4
radical change, not only in the criminal jurlspru-
dence Of this State but the criminal jurisprudence
of all civilized nations. There was not n State in
the Union that has got such law upon its statute
hooks. His principal objection to the bill was that
just Mr.. Sprague got trial under
this bill j st sure would his attorneys ga into
Court and c liIn that it placing his life in jeop
ardy second time, and the Court would he bound
to discharge MIN. He thought they owed duty to
society, and ne hoped the bill would be indefinitely
postponed.
Mr. CHASE said that in regard to the legal techni.
caltes of the bill he could not speak, he not
practicing lawyer but of the merits of the bill he
could speak. 1t a which, if we had spe
cial legislation and the whole matter could be laid
before the Senate ana Assembly, in his opinion it
would he passed by unanimous vote Of both houses
But they were prohib ted by the Constitution
from passing special bill, bill of general char
acter ought to be passed. il the next session of
the Legislature should be called upon to repeal it.
1t was a case of peculiar hardship. He could not
say whether 1t the fault OF the attorney or
whether it was techncality of the law, but of
the merits OF the he could say that it was one
which required the action OF the Senate IL true
the defendant could 90 to the Governor, and
the Governor could pardon him but that
would leave him with cloud hanging
him that should not be there. All that was asked
in this case was a new trial. i'll which testimony
which had been proved to be perjured would be
thrown out. Without that perjured testimony he
could not be convicted. The Senator from Contra
Costa had said that if trial granted the
Court would discharge the prisoner. Very likely it
would. 1t had done 50 with those who were charged
equally with him. No conviction could be had in their
cases. while they equally guilty and proved
by the testimony, as he was. lie would not 30 intoa
relation OF the circumstances of the case but they
were known to several Of the Senators, and he was
satisfied ii they were thoroughly known to all this
bill would pass, to effect this case, ii it
had to be repealed before they left the Capital this
session. He hoped the bill would not be indefinitely
reached this case and relieved this from the op
pressisss and hardshiPs he is suffering and has
suffered.
Mr.. CHENEY said that leaving the question Of Mr..
Sprague out entirely he was in favor Of the bill on
general principles Ii innocent men were convicted
under the present law, after they incdrcerated
they had no remedy but that which mercy might
deal out to them. 1t was true he might apply to
the Governor far pardon, but he goes out from his
prison cell u doomed man. Society has branded
nin his business friends shun him and there is
remuneration to him for the days and months and
the wears which he may have passed in that cell as
feion. he did not see the force Of the argument
made by Senator Sears, that prisoner could tie
discharged the ground that he could not be twice
placed in jeopardy. BY his application for new
trial he waiNed that right He Knew Of other cases
beside that of Mr. Sprague to which this law would
Apply. He knew Of y man who was i'll the State
Prison OF California who there by the perjurei
testimony OF one man, and he was as sure of his
innocence as he that the sun would shine to-
morrow.
Mr.. SEARS called attention to Section Is Of Arti-
Gle ]. OF the Constitution, which says: " No person
slll be twice put in jeopardy for thesame Offense
and asked, if a had been once tried valid
Indictment, if he had not been but in jeopardy
Mr.. CuEsEY answered that the right was waived
ty the petition for new trial. He held that when
a man had been put III the State Prison by fraud
BY perjury he ought not to be compelled to bow
himself before the Governor of the State and de-
mand of him pardon when he ought to have justice.
lie was in favor of the bill without regard to the
case OF Mr. Spraeue and upon thc ground Of jus ice
and right
Mr. DICKINSON agreed with Mr. Cheney, and ia
vored the BILL not account Of the Sprague case,
bu; upon general principles. He did not think that
the criminal law, it existed at present, afforded
that protection which every man Is entitled to- He
took the opposite ground Senator Sears in regard
to the former jeopardy. He had taken be-
fore the supreme Court, in which that question
came up and had been decided. \ man might 90 to
the Governor for pardon, but in doing So lie had to
90 acknowledging that he had been convicted ard
stood guilty man in the eye OF tile law.
Mr. ENOs said that when the bin came before the
Committee ON Judiciary they gave It more than
usual consideration, from the fact that it
innovation upon the established practice. There
were gentlemen before that committee who had had
large and eXten;ed experience in the administration
Of criminal Jurisprudence Men came before the
committee whose general experience in relation to
criminal trials second to none in the State; also
distinguished jurist and Judge. After listening
to all the arguments he came to the conclusion that
the bill was good one and ought to become a faw
1t was tru~it was bold and startling innovation,
but its boldness was justified by our sad eXpe-
rieBce Of seeing men whom we have every reason to
believe innocent lingering out long years Of suf
fering i'll the close cOnde nleGt Of prisons. lie
cited Instances of such in his experience,
and particularly OF case where two Cinnamon had
come near being incarcerated the pTejudiced tcs
timony Of a white man. He argued at length in ia
yor OF the bill.
Mr.. WEXDELL argued against the bill at length,
taking the same ground as Senators Sears and Hit
tell. The question of former jeopardy raised by
Mr. Seirs, was one Of Importance. He WAS sorry 10
hear that the bill was advocated attempt to
erade the Constitution, and he.would vote at all
times to carry out the Constitution not only in its
letter, but in its spirit.
Mr.. SEARS again argued the point of former
jeopardy and cited au hori,es maiutain his ST.
ton.
MIR. JOHNSON warmly advocated the passage of the
bill While he respected precedents, he was not one
of those who looked for the laws governing the
rights Of man simply in mrsty pTecedents leather
covered law books. He believed that there was
something behind and beyond precedents and law
books and that the sacreduess which sheuld
surround mans liberty and mans life. bestowed
how many artlng innovations had been made.
Practices which were now looked upon among
the dearest rights of men thought to be daring
innovations when first proposed He disagreed with
Senator Sears in regard to former jeopardy, and
said that all the decisions were against him He
did not believe in weighing money against mans
life or liberty. He closed his remarks with stir
ring appeal to members vote for the bill on be-
half OF humanity and justice.
Mr. CoS5gR said that if the bill only covered the
special case OF Mr. Sprague he would be inclined to
vote for il, but il went further II was general in
its nature, and would allow criminals q rebearing
very aimsy evidence. There were already too many
loopholes through which criminals escaped. He
called upon the Senate to think Of the murdered
well IS the murderer; to have some care Of the
down by the hand of the assassin, well for the
criminal.
Mr.. DAVIS made exhaustive argument against
the bill, going over much of the ground already
touched upon. He read from the Santa Barbara
Press statement that Sprague had been fairly
tried and convicted that he would have been con-
victed without the testimony of Jones. He also
read the sentence pronounced by Judge Fawcett en-
SpTague. He knew little of the case, except that
the man was 20 him convicted murderer