The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-03-12
THE LEGISLATURE.
continued t,om Page S.

2
the corbere granted for the purpose
IS ho r;ag iudges the right TO assail
OF gl'iiH; n9diyiduals. And when this dis
speC.lSHI, is exercised Yenomously and not
cTeIlonf 60. the purpose of securing APP
alone io, of defendants, 1t should be
pea gro. and in any other portion
Wine v! the country Than Utah II would be
Of -snno5ated by legislative enactment.
had been announced by BLACKSTONE.
,. u nnN and Other famed apostles of
BisHIO or that tail is one OF the creatures
the iar%;,;qed governments, and is IN TACT
oil ciNn .a,II;zatiOn of the purest and most
cry 90 interests of man in his best
human 1ch creation as grows out of
'ftaeling TO be charitable, and that
lhs. m he lust which only Christian
de .,roe and progressive races can ex-
Dsl Ito their fellow man. Article VIII
te e.ts amendments to the Constitution
o. . .be limited States says: excessive
On oh shall not be required and if exces-
g+n hail is unconstitutional under this
an,ondment. what shall be said of the
;Hn' that permits the denial of bail alto
ha'ber and that. TOO, in misdemesnor,
he smallest offense known to the law ?
The i practice in every S ate and Terri
1orv of the Union. we believe, what
oyer NAV be the statutory law upon
he snbigct. allows bail pending both
trial and appeal. Upon this subj, ct
Bishop says:
"Tt is. perhaps, therefore, to be &C
cented as the common law doctrine,
tbat if the case has gone to final sem
t,n.e and the prisoner is taken In
erfcution. he cannot have bail while he
is nnrsuing measures to have the JUG
ment reversed. But this doctrine has
been changed and bail in proper cases
allowed, in England, by recent statute;
and the same is probably true in many
or most OF our States"
Bassett. in his criminal p eldings,
saws, that Even after conviction in a
case not capital, g prisoner may, under
the rules and practice of the common
law. be discharged on bail to appear
and abide the sentence of the court"
Davis VS.. State; 6 Howard Miss },
800; and ex-parte Dyson, 25 Miss. 355.
The common code of Iowa, page 643
zee. 4.l07. says: All defendants are
Dailable both before and ter convic
ion, by sufficient suretieS, except for
,ffenses heretofore punishable with
leath."
The Constitution of the State of
Texas provides, that AL persons shall
,e admitted to bail on sufficient sure
les"
If, therefore, the practice in other
tStes and Territories of the Union
flows bail pending appeal, why should
not be allowed in Utah? Is man TO
e treated as a criminal in Utah simply
ecause he is accused Of crime? Was
ne Legislature to sit silently, and see
,vived the dark and horrible rule of
le Doges OF Venice. when an anony-
lous charge thrust into the braZen
leant d mans conviction and death?
would seem SO, for the reason that
ls one man-in the autocratic exercise
a power which he has shown himself
tally unfit to wield-haS so deere
Bail will do for other places, but
1t tor Utah. and this doctrine is forced
pom US IN defiance of law and prece-
ence
Not only is the right to bail permit
d by law and precedent elsewhere,
1t also its kindred right. that OF ap
cal, the inherent and constitutional
ght OF every citizen, is strongly guard
& by the laws of every State and Ter
tory in the MON. In fact the whole
pirit and genius of our laws, from the
Constitution down, provides for the per-
petuity and preservation of this right.
But of what value is the right of appeal
bail pending the decision of the
higher tribunal is denied and the ac-
Us I'd is being punished the same as if
e were convicted? If the crime with
-hich LIE is charged is q misdemeanor, he
lay be imprisoned pending appeal to
ne Supreme Court of the Territory for
longer term than the longest sentence
lat could be imposed were he found
lilty. And if the charge is such that
e would be entitled to an appeal to the
lpreme Court of the United States, If
all were denied him pending the same,
e might be Imprisoned twice or thrice
long as the longest sentence
lat he could receive. Were he Ill
mately acquitted, he would have suf-
red like common criminal during all
lie time that he was prosecuting his
lpeal, and vet be all the time IN
)cent. Were he guilty, he would suf-
: double penalty, one While pros
uting his appeal and one after final
dgment, so that denial OF bail pend
6 appeal is equally unjust whether
Ie prisoner be guilty or innocent. !
gether guilty or innocent, alike he
IS no redress. Ii innocent. he must
lffer like criminal, because he is &C
lSed, and If guilty double penalty be
use he appeals. Thus he right !
appeal, designed 10 be q |
feguard of liberty and a bar to |
justic with the right of bail denied. /
comes I delusion and a snare, by
lich double punishment is inflicted
ION the guilty, and equally harsh and !
uel punishment inflicted upon the in
lcent. In order, therefore, that the |
gut Of appeal may be OF any practical |
,nelit to the accused, bail pending the
me must be granted; and justice,
lmanity and law alike demand that it |
leuld be granted in every case where /
LEI is a reasonable certainty that bail |
I'LL produce the defendant in court
hen wanted. Even in civil cases, the |
Judgment debtor may, stay execution |
wen he appeals by giving bond that
le Will abide the decree of the higher
lbunal; and shall we continue a
ystem which places mans property |
g2ts above personal liberty?
In view OF all OF which we have here
Fl down, and Of the greater measure of |
nth which exists In the same direc-
on, We respectfully claim that the bail |
us vetoed by His ExcelIency, Governor
IL II. Murray. were strictly within our |
there Of legislative authority. We |
aim that The yetoes of said bills were |
~ riNnn 70 aHrnnna the ennsa Of |