Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-24
FIGHTING FOR LIFE.
THE GOVERNOR HOLDS a COURT AND
HAS AN ARGUMENT BEFORE HIM.

THE GOVERNOR HOLDS COURT AM
HAS AN ARGUMENT BEFORE HIM
The argument in the case of Sprague, con
| victed of the murder of I. Wallace More
on application for Sprague's pardon, com
menced before Governor Perkins at 1:20 P. NJ
yesterday. There was an attendance fully
equal to the capacity of the Governor:
chambers. For the petitioner appeared
Greed Raymond, w. A. Cheney, J. H Nc
kune and District Attorney Brooks, of Ven.
| tura. For the People appeared Attorney.
General Hart, George A. Blanchard, w. T.
Williams, T. B. Bishop and J. T. Richards.
In addition wers present several prominent
lawyers and detective officers, journalists,
citizens of Sacramento and from abroad, and
others.
The Governor stated the application, the
notice given by each side Of the desire to be
heard, and his WILLINGNESS to hear them.
CREED HAYMoND,
Having the affirmative, opened the case, and,
from the time he began, such rapid and
brilliant exhibition of fencing between counsel
took place as has seldom been witnessed.
Counsel on both sides seemed to be inspired
with the most intense nervous interest and an
energy arising almost to passion at times,
soon creating an atmosphere of painful inter-
est, the magnetism of which was felt by all
present, and awakened degree of atten-
tion that was strain upon every mind,
and brought every intelligence into the most
active exercise of its reasoning powers. All
felt that life was at stake, that it was an
unusual and novel, and in one sense, awful
proceeding. 1t was the first Governors
Court of which any of those present had ever
had experience, and probably no Executive
ever had before it such a peculiar proceeding.
Governor Perkins was evidently painfully
impressed with the situation and the
novel position he found himself in, sitting
in a quasi-judicial capacity, and forced
by counsel to make a semi-review of proceed
ings had in solemn courts of trial and appeal.
The Governor manifested throughout a
thorough appreciation of the great respon-
sibility resting upon him and the deep
solemnity of the proceeding, and by his man
ner OF presiding gave evidence Of his de-
sire for perfectly impartial hear
ing and a conscientious discharge Of
duty by all the parties before him.
The argument continued with the greatest
vigor four hours and half without any pause
or intermission, and every attorney in the
case took hand in it. In great part it was
a constant cross.tire OF question, answer, as
sertion, denial, invective and challenge, in
volving fact, personal veracity, statements of
law, evidence, precedent, good faith, etc. OF
such an argument, impregnated by so much
of the fever of excitement and the earnest
ness of deep feeling. but a faint idea could be
given by either synoptical or full report. To
the presentation and characterization of the
more material points, therefore, this report
has been confined, as the best method of in
forming the general reader.
Mr.. Raymond, in opening, called the Gov
ernor to bear him witness that he had not
made any personal appeal to him, or ap-
preached him with argument or persuasion, to
pardon Sprague. He believed with Judge
Temple that the Executive in cases like this
sits as aChancellor. Much had been pub.
hshed by the press about the case, but very
little of it was for the defendant. All the
efforts of counsel for defendant had
been to secure him new trial. If he was
entitled to it, and the time for it had gone by,
then he ought to be pardoned. But to cut all
questions of doubt out of the case, believing
as he did in the mans innocence, he had
PROPOSITION
To make, which be submitted in writing as
follows:
The Attorney. General in an interview between
q reporter Of the REcoRD-U UNION and himself having
expressed his belief that the attorneys for the de-
fendant had avoided new trial because they be-
leved it would result in conviction now comes
the attorney for the defendant, and plightng his
faith an attorney that he used all means within
his power to procure new trial in the full belief
that 1t would result in the acquittal of the defend
ant earnest of that faith makes to the people of
the State these propositions:
l. The Attorney General and defendants attorney
will agree that the Supreme Court shall recall the
remttitur issued in the Sprague case. CThis being
in accordance with what the Attorney General in
the Supreme Court stated had been done in the Nor
cross case).
2. That bill Of exceptions on the merits shall be
settled by any Judge OF the Supreme Court whom
the Attorney General may select.
g. That the case be heard on its merits by the Su-
preme Court and if that Court by its judgment de-
termines that Sprague had in the Court below fair
trial, and afirms the Judgment then the defendant
will waive all claim to Executive clemency and suffer
execution.
4. That If the Supreme Court determines that the
defendant did not have trial in accordance with
law and reverses the Judgment, the defendant will
agree to change Of venue and the case may be
tried in any county in this State which the Attor-
ney-General may select, and before any Judge whom
the Governor may designate.
II the foregoing propositions are rejected, then
the defendant will agree that the reporters notes Of
the trial and the rulings of the Judge and instruc-
tions may be submitted to any Justice of the Su-
C,
to be selected by the Governor, and that if such
Justice or lawyer does not determine that under the
decisions Of Supreme Court and the law the
judgment must be vacated and was unauthorized
then the defendant will waive all claim to Executive
cemency; otherwise to have pardon or a new trial
THE REPLY.
Attorney General Hart instantly arose and
with much feeling expressed his great surprise
at the proposition. He was astonished that
any counsel should seek to place the law
officer Of the State in such a position-one
calculated to embarass him in the public eve
and prejudice him in the public mind. Coun-
sci understood the law well, and ought not to
have made such proposition. Mr.. Hay
mond well knew an Attorney General could
lot even seem to consent to such a remark
able and unheard-of offer He could not con-
sent to the withdrawal of the remittitur, and
Mr.. Raymond well knew it. The Attorney
General ;s powerless to do anything of the
kind, and even if he should. it would have NO
earthly effect except to make him the laugh
ing stock of the whole land If his consent
could do it, he might consent to Sprague hav-
ing new trial.
Mr. Haymond-We viii accept the con-
sent.
Mr.. Hart-The counsel well knew that no
such consent could be given under the oath
and bond of the officer and under the Con-
stitution and thelaws. The Supreme Court had
in the presence of Mr.. Raymond and himself
plainly told them that the Attorney General
had no power to consent to the withdrawal
of the remittitur. That is question solely
within judicial authority in all criminal cases.
The proposition placed the Attorney General
in false position, and every lawyer above
the grade of pettifogger knew it. Suppose,
however, that the Attorney. General had such
power what would be the result-why plea
in bar of former conviction. Every school.
| boy knows a man cannot be twice placed in
jeopardy, and no one can by consent in a
criminal case remove the bar Of former con-
viction; therefore such consent, if effective,
would be so to work nothing but the dis
charge of the prisoner, and thus what the
Exec utive is asked to do would be transferred
to the shoulders of the Attorney General.
The proposition was not such one as should
have been at ala proposition to do any
thing the Constitution, the laws and good
| morals inhibit
He was present to ascertain if in the judg-
ment Of the Governor the defendant is on the
evidence guilty or innocent of the crime with
| which he is charged. If counsel could fairly
and reasonably show Sprague innocent, he
would instantly join in the application for his
| pardon. But this attempt to create popular
sentiment against the judicial arm of the Gov
ernment be must and would denounce sem
| timent which should not be allowed to try
criminals. In some quarters and by some
papers his sincerity had been questioned in
this case. He cared not he knew his duty,
and his conscience should not reproach him
raoIacf Of or a ,-ofroaf fror,, 10 J,,@x-