Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-10-15
HIS REASONS WHY.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY BENEFITS LET.
TIERS TO THE GOVERNOR
In Behalf of the Communication of the
Sentences of Drager and Olsen, Who
are to be Hanged To-Morrow.

But another day stands between William
Drager and John Olsen and the grave. The
| gallows is being prepared at Placerville on
| which they are to be executed for the parts
| they enacted in the tragedy that took place
on the Lowell ranch year ago. One man
has already suffered the death penalty
thereior-John Henry Myers = he who
planned the crime and led in carrying it
| out. At the time the men were convicted
the popular belief was that all were equally
guilty. but of late marked change of SEN
timent has taken place in Placerville
and throughout Ell Dorado county.
The people there have come to the
belief that, while Drager and Olsen
are not blameless in the matter, they
do not deserve to be hanged for their part
in the affair that resulted in the murder of
John Lowell, but that their sentences
should be commuted to imprisonment for
| life. Petitions have been forwarded to the
Governor, urging him to interpose his
authority and save them, and District At
| torney Bennett has laid before him two
| separate arguments why, in his opinion,
Messrs Drager and Olsen should not be
| executed. These arguments have not, be-
fore to-day, been made public, but are
| given below. In a note TO the RECORD
UNION, under date of yesterday, District
Attorney Bennett writes: 'Inasmuch as
Governor Waterman, in denying COM
mutation of sentence to Olsen and Drager
from death to life imprisonment, has done
so through the public press / deem it right
to afford you for publication the commu-
nications that |, as District Attorney of Ell
Dorado county, and as an individual, ad-
dressed TO the Governor in behalf of these
unfortunate men," The letters are as fol-
lows:
PLACERvILLE, November II, lSsS.
Hon. r. W. Waternldn-DEAE SIR: A petition
OF citizens of this county praying for the COM
mutation by your EXcellency of the sentence of
death pronounced upon John Olsen and William
Drager, in the Superior Court of this county, on
the = day of October, A ID. 1885, to imprison-
ment for life, has been presented to me for nv
signature and l have signed the same From
the tact of my holding the position of District
Attorney in this county, and in that capacity
having conducted the prosecution against these
men, it is due to your Excellency to myself
and to the defendants, that l should state the
reasons that have impelled me to join with
other citizens of the county in asking commuta-
ton of sentence for these defendants
AS the entire evidence in the case is before
you, II is unnecessary and would be unbecom-
weight of the testimony.
wish. however, unequiyocally to declare
that believe that the evidence fully justified
the verdict of the jury, and under the immuta-
Bile principles of law, which it was the duty of
the Judge to administer. he had no alternative
but 10 deny the motion for new trial, and |
90 not wish my action in signing the petition
for a continuation o sentence to be considered
in the slightest degree as rejecting upon the
Justice of the verdict or the Judgment of the
Court, but of which 1, in behalf of the people,
strenuously urged and demanded
If believed that action by the Executive in
this case would be undoing the work of the iurg
or Judge, or an indirect censure upon either of
them. would be the last to request such action,
as DeleVe S0ur EXcellency would be the last
TO take 1t. This, in my opinion however is a
case, owing to its own peculiar circumstsnces
peculiarly appealing to the clemency of the Ex-
ecqtive, case in which Judge and jury have
nobly done their duty, and yet a duty still re.
mains to the Executive. There has arisen in
the case matter for the consideration of the
Executive, that has occurred subsequent to the
trlal ana conviction, and which was of such a
nature as to be unavailable to the defendant
upon motion for new trial
The record shows that prior to his conviction
the defendant Meyer had made numerous state
ments, one of which was under oath, made Mt
ms preliminary examination before the com
hitting magistrate, in which he imnlicatad
ms codefendants Olsen and Drager. both in the
conspiracy 10 steal the stock of Lowell and as
actually participating in bis murder: but after
Meyer. Olsen and Drager had been Jointly tried
and convicted, Meyer made au affidavit ASSUME
Ing the entire guilt of the crime and exonerat-
ing the other defendants from any participation
IN the murder or previous knowledge of it, and
also from any share in any conspiracy to steal
BoWelPs stock.
This affidavit was made the basis of q motion
Tor a new trial for the two defendants. olsen
and Drsger, but under well settled rules of Law
winch regarded the failure of Olsen and Drager
10 place meyer upon the stand at the trial as a
witness in their behalf as laches, and also
looked upon his affidavit as coming from an en-
tlreiy dlscredited witness, the Court could not
grant the motion.
The conduct of Meyer, however in sss,,nin,
the entire guilt of the crime and exoneratin4
the other defendants, has raised doubt in the
IN MINDS I OF most persons familiar with the case
SO far as have heard expressions of opinion on
the SUBJECT as TO the guilt of his co-defendants
and TO my mind, this is an abiding doubt that
mas no satisfactory solution in the evidence in
another. " WV
There have been instances in which some one
or more persons charged with crime have been
willing, from personal devotion TO others m ss
sumo the entire guilt and exonerate the others
Dut IN this case many reasons forbid the enter.
tanning any belief either of collision among
tne deIendauts IN the nature of secret under
standing that one should suffer for all or of any
idea OF generous selfdevotion on the part OF
Meyer. f--' VI
The defendants have never had any opportu-
NIFTY 10 arrive at any such UNDERSTANDING for soon
after the crime was committed they Separated
and Ol,en and Drager never saw Never again
until after all were arrested: they were arrested
at olnerent times and places, and after their ar
resi- were conhned entirely apart from one au-
other and never permitted to confer togeiherOr
nave any communication with one another ex-
cept on one occasion during their trial, when
Ihey were all brought into one room and al-
lowed to see their attorneys together for a few
minutes, the Sheriff standing in the adjoining
room VITA the door open. After this. they had
no iurther communication up u the time Never
voluntarily declared that he was the ONLY prIiItv
one, which occurred under the following circum-
stances: 80 ~
The jury brought in their verdict of ppiItv
against these.deiendants about 20 clock In the
morning, and upon being removed from the
courtroom 10 the jail, Never as soon as ne was
WITHIN the jan, said TO the Sheriff. who had him
IN cha'ge: " II these two men are hung Irpfrr
ring 10 Olsen and Drager), they hang two inno-
cent men. Neither of them knew that Lowell
was 10 be killed until killed him, and / xii ed
MIN myself. AT an early hour of the same
morning, shortly after daybreak. the defendant
Meyer sent for the Deputy Sheriff and informed
him that he had been unable to sleep, and had
Wsiktd the moor all night; that what he had
told about the particiI alton of Olsen and Drager
IN Inc murder was false, and that they knew
nothing about the murder until after il oc-
CURED, ana that prior to the murder there had
peSn hothlng SAID about stealing LowelPs stock
There was no opportunity for any person act
ing for the defendants TO have arranged for the
action taken by Meyer, the defendants were
en l,,,lt itlehdtss and had only been in this
country short time, snd, as am informed ty
tie She-lh of the county not a single person
having any acquaintance with either of the de.
PENDANTS visited them at any time, viii they
were IN his custody. prior TO their conviction
Moreover, the very character of the defend
ants themseveS-dull, heavy ignorant fellows
unacquainted with our laws and with the effect
o confessions or denials-makes very unlikely
any preconcerted arrangement that after an ad-
verse termination Of the joint trial one defend.
ant should assume the guilt for NIL
EVEN more improbable seems any idea of
Meyer sacrificing himself for the benefit OF his
co-deiendauts- From the time OF his arrest his
greatest solicitude seemed TO be that MS Co
defendants should not get Off with any less
punishment than ne himself received, aud his
accusations against them had aroused in them
bitter hostility 10 him, so that they SOUGHT NO
communication with him and had only curses
Last y the action of Meyer is both consistent
with his previous repeated admissions of guilt
and with the persistent denisls OF guilt by olsen
and Drage-.
If. then the avowal of Never he Talon az n