Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-20
ADMITTED TO BAIL.
END OF THE HARLAN HABEAS
CORPUS CASE.
Judge Mcfarland Admits Him to
Bail in the Sum of Forty
Thousand Dollars.

Inc naDeaS corpus case Oh }. H. ddrlan
was concluded yesterday before Judge Nc
Farland, and he was admitted to bail in
the sum of $4,000. A bond was immedi-
ately made up, in ten times the amount,
by friends of Mr. Harlan who were present,
as follows G. W. Scott, J. d. Stephens,
n. Wyckotf, B. w. Stephens, H. P. Mer-
rift, F. Billiard, Jason Watkins, J. H. Glide,
James Farris and Z. s. Carey, each signing
for $40, 900. The argument occupied the
Court from 10 A Nj. to P. NJ. Messrs Craig
and Highton argued in favor of the de-
PENDANTS being admitted to bail, and Messrs.
Hart and Clark against it. The arguments
were all lengthy and able.
In rendering his decision, Judge McFar-
land said has listened with great deal
of interest TO the very full and able argu-
Iuents made on either side in this matter.
with a mind entirely free from any DISPOSE
ton towards the one side or the other when
the arguments commenced. ! desire to
say nothing, if l can avoid it, which can
possibly affect the final disposition of this
case before the jury when it shall be
brought before them for trial. The ques.
ton here, of course, is not whether or not
"
case is guilty or not guilty of any particular
crime. That is not matter for this Court
at this time to decide. The defendant is
charged with crime, and is suffering inn
prisonment preliminary to the trial. Now,
the only purpose, of course, of this pre-
iminary Imprisonment of a person who is
merely charged with crime, is to secure his
presence before the Court which has the
jurisdiction to try him. When the State
imprisons man who is charged with crime.
and who is afterwards declared to be
innocent, the State, of course, has
done that man manifest Injustice.
which no doubt would be remedied if it
were not that the number of such cases
makes it impracticable. The State has no
right to punish a man before conviction.
but, from the very necessity of the case,
the State is compelled frequently to i'm
prison man uniustly, because there is a
reasonable ground for charging him with
the commission Of crime. If he were not
held, in most cases he could not be pro-
cured at the time of the trial. When the
party, however, is able to give bail, the
policy of the law is to allow him to
secure his attendance by giving bail.
In that class OF cases, formerly, the matter
was only within the discretion of the officer
examining the case. Under our Constitu-
ton a man is entitled to the right to bail.
except in one particular class of eases.
Now in this case apprehend, from all its
surroundings, that there is no doubt-at
least no reasonable doubt-that this de-
PENDANT will be present when the time for
his trial comes. | hardly think that the
prosecution itself has any reasonable doubt
of that fact. He therefore ought to be al
lowed TO be discharged on bail, if the
Court has the power to allow it.
1t is claimed in this case that the of
tense is not bailable, because the State
Constitution provides that bail shall not be
allowed in cases where the crime charged
is a capital one, and where the proof of
guilt is evident and the presumption great.
1t is claimed also, under clause of the
Penal Code, that the power of the Court to
allow bail in such cases is taken away.
That constitutional question has been ar
gued here with great deal of force
on both sides. Ny present impression
is that the Legislature had the right
to prevent the Court from allowing bail in
the class of cases mentioned The reason.
suppose, that the law provides for no bail
IN capital cases is because the fear of death
IS the highest and the strongest motive
that can influence the human mind, and |
suppose that the theory upon which the
law IS founded is that where the danger of
capital punishment is great, the induce
ment TO escape would be so over
towering that no amount of bail
would amount to absolute security.
presume that is the ground on which that
distinction is made
The question, therefore. resolves itself to
this: Whether or not, in this case. the
proof is evident and the presumption
strong that the defendant is guilty, or
would probably be convicted of a capital
oiiense-that is, an offense the punishment
OF which would be death. Considering all
the circumstances of this case, as they APP
pear now before me, | am not
prepared to say that the proof is
evident and the presumption clear
that he is guilty OF capital otfense. That
IS matter for the jury to determine. How
they should determine it-how they will
determine it's not for me to say but.
considering all these circumstances, |. am
not prepared TO say that the evidence is
such, and the presumption is such that bail
must be refused on account of this
being capital offense. 1t does not seem
clear to me that Jury would convict the
defendant of murder in the first degree. and
1t is still less clear, that in case of such con-
vletlon, the punishment would be capital
In my judgment, therefore, the defendant
should be admitted TO bail
In liking the amount of bail, however. I
think the circumstances of the defendant
as developed here should be considered.
A party entitled to bail, whose circum-
stances are such that he is not able to give
large bail, shoul not be required SO to
do. But considering the nature of this
case, | think the defendant ought to be
held in large amount of bail, so as to add
further security for his appearance for trial,
! will admit the defendant to bail in the
sum of $4,000.