Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1881-12-08
Hitting Harder !!
Reply of the District Attorney TO Mr..
BushnelIs Recent Letter.
The Question as TO the Legality of
The bail the only one at Issue.

The HERALD:-After having been re-
peatedly asked why II had permitted
| Cannon to be released, ETC., | wrote
| The HERALD the exact facts relative to
| his being bailed, without comment, care
fully avoiding any expressions of opin-
ion of either the guilt or innocence of
the accused. In that communication |
| assaulted no one, nor had I any reason
to suppose that any one could object to
those facts being known or feel called
upon to explain away those facts.
Mr.. Bushnell seems to fee himself
| and Judge Cothren aggrieved thereby
and takes upon himself the defense of
all that was done, even to the iustifica-
ton of the 'omicide by Cannon, and
in late issue of The HERALD (for what
purpose / will leave others to judge re-
views at length part OF the testimony
| and what he assumes to be the undis-
puted facts in the case.
Believing it not the province of an
attorney to manufacture sentiment
either in favor of or against the accused
and further that the only proper place
for me to discuss the testimony on the
merits of this case is before a jury
selected and sworn to try the cause,
viii pass by this portion of his commun-
ication without comment, as | viii also
his insinuations of my improper con-
duet of the trial, with this observation
alone, that if after having practiced at
the bar for the same length of time as
he has and am still found deficient, such
censure may be just, but the question
may still be an open one whether it
would come in good taste from Mr..
Bushnell
Whether -four of the jury were will
ing to acquit Cannon" or not ! am in
doubt. | have Uery good reasons for
believing that such willingness was not
manifested. VIII some of the jury cor
rect me if | am mistaken.
Mr.. Bushnell states "that if Cannon
had been man of wealth, etc, he
need not have been imprisoned at all.
| do not know by what authority he
makes this statement; nor can | assent
to its correctness. He had fair exam
ination before an impartial justice and
was defended by Messrs. Bushnell and
Seaton. The justice did exactly what
the law required him to do and was sat
istied that he did right 1t would have
required no amount of wealth to have
tested the matter as to whether either
the county or circuit Judge would have
admitted him to bail. Does Mr.. Bush
nell for moment suppose that any
amount of wealth would have influenced
the justice or either of the Judges? For
my part | know it would not, nor do |
believe that any one of them would have
dared to thus trifle with public justice.
He also states that although hung
jury is usually equivalent to an acquittal
yet it seems Cannon is to be tried
again.
| have yet to learn that a disagree |
ment is equivalent to an acquittal Less
than year ago Mr.. Bushnell made the |
same statement to me in regard to an
other case wherein there was ''hung |
jury" yet on fair re-trial the jury in |
less than ten minutes returned verdict |
of guilty.
did state to Mr.. Bushnell that |
should exercise the authority vested in |
me by the statute quoted by. me in my
last. calling his attention to the same,
and require the sureties TO the bond to |
gre q tuU deScription of their real estate; |
to which he replied ''he did not see why
the case of Cannon should be made an |
and when | repeated it to |
him, adding that demanded it to pre-
vent improper bail being given and to
enable me to ascertain whether the
sureties were really worth the required |
or not, or whether they swore
falsely, and if they did so swear / would |
prosecute them to the full extent of the t
law, he replied, ''that he did not care
for that as he did not intend to give
straw bail.
The justification of the streties does
not comply with the requirements of
the statute before cited. The sureties,
OF a part of them at least, sign for a
specified portion of the recognizance
contrary to the statute, one of whom
does not swear to any unincumbered
real estate
The law requires, for various reasons,
the sureties to the bond to justify in the
amount Of the recognizance, one of
which is that the state should not be re-
CURED to prosecute fifty or hundred
suits to recover the amount of the for
feited bond
| desire to say nothing about the
financial standing of the suretles or how
the bail was procured. My own opin-
ion is, had the proceedings been regular
the sureties would have been insufficient
and if the bondsmen are worth millions
the bond if forfeited cannot be col
Iected.
Mr. Bushnell is mistaken when he
supposes that / shrink from any respon-
sibility in this matter. | believe injus-
tice has been done in these proceedings,
and as long as the people repose in me
the trust with which am now charged,
shall endeavor to do my duty accord