Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-11-08


E. E. Blunt on the 2Sth of October, was
brought up from Jail in obedience to the writ
of habeas corpus issued by Chief Justice
Bingham, as mentioned in The STAR. The
prisoner was taken before the chief justice.
Mr.. Armes appeared for the government and
Mr.. A: B. Williams for the petitioner. The
| question of bail pending, the hearing on habeas
corpus was considered and the amount was set
at $4,000. This was given, Mr. Isaac b. Jones
becoming surety and the hearing was fixed for
10 o'clock today.
THE HEARING THIS MORNING.
The hearing took place this morning before
Chief Justice Bingham and Justices Hagner
and James sitting in General Term, Assistant
District Attorneys Coyle and Armes for the
government and Mr.. A. b. Williams for the
petitioner.
Before proceeding with the hearing the court
suggested that counsel be as brief as possible
The petition having been read, Marshall Rams
delis return was read, to the effect that he re-
celved the petitioner from the warden of the
jan, who held the prisoner under a commit
ment Of the Police Court.
MR.. WILLIAMS ON THE LAW IN THE CASE.
Mr.. Williams read sections 1914 and lO15
(from the crimes act of 1880. and said
that those sections applied to commissioners.
1t was held prior to the establishment of the
Police Court that justices Of the peace could
take bail for the Criminal Court. The act es-
tablishlng the Police Court provides that the
Judge oil the Police Court may examine and
hold to bail i'll all offenses whether cOgniZable
IN that court or the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trlct. This was certainly broad enough. I'm
der the construction on the other side all per-
sons snail go to Jail for q hearing, when the
Constitution says every one has the right to
eXceDt hal Ea
understood that the construction was that the
petitioner could only be held to bail for trial
Possibly 1t had been SO held in New York. but
he claimed that such decision was not obliga-
tory on this court.
NR. coYLE's ARGUMENT.
MIR. Coyle SAID the question at issue was as to
the meaning OF "hoid to bail" He claimed
that the words meant that the magistrate could
require bail for the court of final Jurisdiction
only and not for hearing before him. He
read numerous authorities and claimed that it
was only under express laws of tho states that
commissioners or justices could hold to bail
for hearing; that they had no such right
under common law, and no law OF Congress
conferred this power in the District. He read
section 1O5l as to the powers of the police
judge to hold to bail, and said tina: there was
no express grant, as is the in some states
and that he may commit or take bail for a hear
Ing before him If it should appear that the case
Is trlable before him, but he Is not equired to
LOOK beyond the papers, and if the charge is
triable by the Supreme Court ne can only take
bail for that court. In conclusion, he said
they took this position because he was con-
WINGED that bond for a hearing as is proposed
could be enforced.
Mr.. WILLIAMS IN REPLY
said that the question OF bail was an important
one, and II the court upheld the contention on
the other side innocent parties NAV be enforced
to remain in custody. In passing the Police
Court act Congress intended to give the Judge
full power. and he succeeded to those OF the
justices Of the peace. In the broadest terms
the power to take bail pending further hearing
was given the Justices, and the Police Court.
created by the act Of June, 1870. succeeded to
those powers and the power was expressly
given in that act. He claimed that some of the
authorities read sustained the righs 10 take
bail, and as a matter of right he claimed the
petitioner was entitled to bail
The decision will be announced on Monday