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

H.--Yes am Of that fact, and yet that
same evidence existed against cullee, with Browns
evidence and with stronger evidence than there is
against Sprague without Jones evidence, and the
Judge himself certifying that there was not sufii-
cent evidence to warrant him in being put on trial
R--The same Judge?
H-Judge Fawcett That is why am going to
introduce before the Governor the testimony IN the
Curlee case, as that completely controyerts that
position.
Statement of Attorney-General Hart In
Resistance of the Application for a
Pardon.
Reporter General, considerable interest seems to
be felt by the public generally in relation TO the
Sprague case, and nasmuch as the defense has been
heard through the press and before the public in
divers ways, it is desirable that some statement
should be made Of the Of the prosecution upon
the merits of the apple ltion for pardon now pend
ing before the Governor.
General Hart-Some question might be made by
persons who feel great deal of interest in the sue
cess of the application to the propriety OF public
officer expressing himself too freely upon subject
office commenced the peculiar cruelty connected
with the commission Of the crime was such that l
took occasion to go perhaps further in the perform
ance OF my official duty than l would ordinarily,
and to attend in person at the last hearing OF
Spragues case in Ventura county, and that from the
facts as have gathered it from the record, and the
expressions that heard in the locality where the
crime was committed, am persuaded that senti-
ment has been created in portions OF the State re-
mote from the scene Of the homicide that is not ex
actly correct l should feel extremely
RELUCTANT TO SPEAK
Upon the subject it not for the fact that with
in my own personal knowledge the dispa' ches that
were sent to the public press in relation to the pro-
ceedngs had while was in attendance upon the
Court were not true but were coored on the side Oh
the defendant For instance, 1t was stated IN those
dispatches as understand, that Judge Temple, in
passing upon the motion made before him, certified
that about 300 errors had been committed
by Judge Fawcett in the trial OF the
case Judge Temple certified to no such thing, and
the statement in that respect was absolutely untrue
And have seen also recently in the papers an at
tempt as think to create public opinion in favor
of the defendant by obtaining, as 1t is reported,
from a convict in the State Prison statement
which Is so at variance with all the evidence in the
case as to make it ridiculous. That statement pur
ports to place the commission of that murder upon
two parties who have already been acquitted OF the
crime, and now in no danger OF prosecution
and the statement, coming from convict, IS OF
Of value except that it is another step in
the systematic attempt that has been made by those
who are interested in the defendant TO create false
public sentiment to the effect that of the most
monstrous crimes perhaps that was ever committed
in California shall go unpublished. These consider
ations probably make it my duty, not only as pub
lie officer interested officially in the enforcement OF
the criminal laws, but as citizen, to do what1 can
towards counteracting the effect of the
MISREPRESENTATION
That have been made to the public.
Reporter-But my desire is to know whether or
not you think that a communication Of that sentence
by the Governor ought to be made?
General Hart-No; decidedly not. II any inter
ference OF that judgment is had the Governor
should pardon If no interference is had, of course
the man will be hung. according to the judy
ment of the Court The crime OF which the de-
fenQdnt mas Deem cOuNiCteu Wns pcShiiaiJ SiuOi
and atrociOus 1t was clear case OF
lying in wait, and the result Of generalization
and malice aforethought-a species Of murder that
is defined by our Code to be murder of the first de-
gree, the fixing of the punishment of which is the
peculiar province Of the jury. The evidence shows
that the deceased was murdered at midnight and
upon his own premises by masked men, who, accord
ing to preconcerted plan came to his house. burned
his property, and while he rainly attempting to
save his horses from the ravayes of the flames, he
was brutally, cruelty and dastardly murdered. The
man who committed that murder deserves and
should receive the extreme punishment of the law,
and the guilt Of any person OF the commission Of
that crime being once established, it would be an
outrage upon public justice if any other punishment
than the death penalty were inflicted. In determin-
ing the punishment to be inflicted, it is but neces-
gary for the public offcers-the jury and the Chief
Executive-to look to
THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES
Connected with the crime itself. The evidence
which goes to tho establishment of the defendants
guilt and 10 connect him with the commission Of
the crime should have nothing to do with the fixing
of the punishment. The punishment should be
fixed in accordance with the circumstances of the
crime itself but the defendant should not be con.
yic,od OF that crime, and therefore should suffer
penalty whatever, unless the evidence is sufficient
to establisA his guilt beyond . reasonable doubt.
His guilt being established in that msnner-that is,
beyond reasonable doubt-the circumstances OF
the crime should determine the character OF the
punishment, and in this case clearly, ii in any
case that has ever been tried in this or any other
country, the person who committed the crime
should receive the severest punishment. There is
no middle ground. II the defendant is guilty, he
should be hanged il there is a reasonable doubt as
to his guilt, it would be an injustice to him to in
fiict any punishment whatever upon him. A COM
mutation of that sentence, therefore, would be an
injustice to one side certainly. II there is doubt
of the defendants guilt it would be an injustice to
infiict Imprisonment upon him. If there Is no rea-
sonable doubt OF his guilt, it would be injustice
to the people to interfere with the judgment OF the
law, and would, in my judgment, be an unwar-
ranted exercise of executive power, and an unwar-
rauted interference by the Executive with the en-
forcement OF the DEGREES Of the Judiciary. The
Executive should never commute sentence from
greater to lesser punishment except upon the
theory that copceding the defendants guilt OF the
crime the peculiar circumstances connected with
the commission OF the chine would not justif, the
adiudged punishment. l therefore think that IT,
upon the evidence in this case, the Governor should
deem it his duty to interfere with the execution Of
the judgment as it now stands, it would become
his ursquestionabIe duty to grant free pardon to
the defendant.
Reporter-Do YOU think that the Governor ought
to pardon him?
SHOULD THE GOVERNOR PARDON HIM
General Hart-No, | do not. The evidence in
this was, in my Judgment, sufficient to convict
the defendant OF the crime, and to establish his
guilt beyond any question of doubt.
Repor,er-But it is said that the defendant hs
been convicted upon periured testimony. What
have you to say about that
General Hart-Such claim Is not an unusual
thing in criminal cases. Lawyers who become ar
IDENTIFY enlisted In behalf Of Client generally il not
always, say, and some Of them think that every
person who testihes upon the other side is mint
ting perjury. lawyers first duty is to his cient,
and ne is trained, while preparing himself for the
bar, to trust implicitly in all that his client tells
him. And hence ! not at all astonished that
those who have so ably, faithfully and persistenty
batted for Mr. Sprague should be induced to charge
the witnesses for the prosecution with perjury.
Reporter They say, however, that he has been
convicted on the testimony Of Jones alone, who
afterwards confessed that he had sworn to false
T., &h..t