Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-03
Afternoon Session.

The Senate reassembled at 2 P. NJ.
The reconsideration of S. C. r. "a coming
up as the special order of the hour, Mr.. JOHN
son addressed the Senate as follows: Mr.. Pres
ldent, l called the attention of the author
of this resolution 80 certain in the
luton which in my judgment rendered it such res
olution as ! could not conscentiously support and
| suggested to him that ii certain words were
stricken 0nt would eheeIfully support the resolu-
ton. believe that every Senator and every Assem-
blyman would cheeTfully support the resolution and
would be better satisfied to support it with those
words stricken out. did not receive from the au-
thor of the resolution decided reply, and | now
make mention Of the matter in order that l may
call the attention OF the Senate to the words that
object to- and in order that may again say publicly
as | have said privately, that with those
words stricken from the resolution | for one
will cheerfully support it. | object to the
resolutions in their present shape, because they
sumo TO try lawsuit over again and to pass judg-
ment upon the jury and the Court when we have
neither moral legal right to do so. The part
that object to in the resolution is FIRST the of
the word "allege, in line five of the resolution as
printed and would call the attention of the Sen.
ators TO the reading Of the resolution and to the
use of that word. The resolution reads as follows
Whereas, j. \. Patterson, j. J. Doyle, J. D.
Purcell, W. L. Pryor and William Braden, settlers
upon what are known as the Mussel Slough lands
in this State, have each recently been sentenced by
Judge Sawyer, of the United States Circuit Court,
to eight months imprisonment, $500 fine and costs
of prosecution, for alleged interference with the
United States Marshal while serving wrts of eject
ment."
Iwish the word "alleged" to be stricken from
the resolution. For this reason these men were
indicted for interfering with the United States Mar
shal while he executing writ OF the United
States Courts. They had fair trial. They were
ably defended, and the jury found them guilty of
interfering with the United States Marshal while he
was lawfully executing lawful writ Of United
States Court. Therefore, in my judgment, it is
improper it is unwise, it is wrong for this Senate
to denounce the decision OF the jury and of the
Court as being an alleged interference with the
United States Marshal. ] ask to have that one word
stricken out, that it would read that they were
sentenced for interference with the United States
Marshal. | can say in objection to it that it is
neither grammatical logical, nor reasonable. 1t is
not as though this was new proposition being sub
mitted to this Senate. 1t has been passed upon by
the Court. These men were tried by jury, not by
the Court and every lawyer upon this floor knows
that whenever he has case which appeals to the
sympathy that the jury is the tribunal that he
selects pass upon the question. Aud jury found
these guilty OF Ofintererence with United States
Court Therefore, it seems to me to be an improper
use OF the term to say that they sentenced for
alleged interference because the jury said they did
interfere, and it ought to read that they
fenced for interference with the United States Mar
shal. 1t makes no difference with the resolution.
1t does not take from it any power II does
not take from it any OF its force. 1t
does not take from it anything which will
give it weight with the President OF the
United States, and it does take from it a re-
Court that passed upon the question submitted
in this case The things that | object to will
be found upon lines 10 and II.
The resolution reads: "And whereas these men
are industrious and generally lawabiding farmers,
whose offense against the law, II they have commit
ted an ofense, has not been malicious" object TO
the use of the words, IF they have committed an
offepse" object to the Of those words for this
same reason, that it is reflection upon the Court.
1t is an unwarranted and uncllled for and
wise and an improper reflection upon the jury and
the Court because the jury decided that those men
had committed offense. The jury decided it
when they brought in their verdict OF guilty That
settled the question to whether or not they had
been guilty of an offense. That settled the ques-
ton that they had committed an effense. That
question having been settled, after having had fair
trial it seems to me that it is unwise that it is
improper that it is not in response to the require
ments either Of oaths, in response 10 the
quirements OF our sympatbies, that we should pass
resolutions rejecting upon the jury and upon he
Court, and | had desired at the outset to make
these remarks, as showing that / was not opposed
to the resolutions upon principle: that was not
opposed to these resolutions because they asked
pardon Tor these men, but that was opposed to
them because OF the use of language in the resoiu-
ton which, in my judgment, is out of place, and
contains unwarranted reflections upon depart
ment of justice which is certainly entitled to our
confidence, and with these words striker out-the
word alleged" in line 5, and the words eli
they have committed an offense," in lines
10 and IL, would eheerfully vote for the
my power in securing these men a par
don from the President Of the United States.
And believe, Mr. President, as has been suggested
by the Senator from Santa Clara, that it would make
it vote of this Senate, and therefore il
would give it some further weight with the Presi
dent OF the United States. II may be said in re.
sponse to that that majority vote Of this Senate
is sufficient 10 pass the resolutions and give them
the weight deyolving upon any communication from
the Legislature of California. That may be so in
legal and technical sense but Il IL could also contain
the statement that it was by the unanimous voice
| OF the Senate, it seems to me that it would have
some little weight and bearing upon the question
whether or not the President should pardon thesc
| men. Now, do not wish TO enter into discussion
OF the merits of the controversy between the settlers
upon what is known the Mussel slough lands
and the Southern Pacific Railroad Com
pany. | have no desire to rake that
matter over. l have desire to allude to ths
unfortunate complications that have arisen betweer
these settlers the one side and the railroad CON
psny and the Courts upon the other, although an
to say, sir that in my Judgment the fault ha.