St. Landry democrat., 1891-06-13

Mr. Editor: The arrest and detention OF lhe
Lfonyille prisoners, notwithstanding tnelr ap-
plicatiou for bail lthe otfense being palanle oli
It's face, has given rise TO liluch stleeC th 10
sion nro and con, without reference to the le-
gal hearings of the case. 1t seems 1nat tllGlt
counsel made an application Tor pall Whicn tne
Judge refused to grant, upon tne sfotinus t I'D
he had a right to detaln these accused penulhS
. nrnlimjnary examination to be had at some
future day. II such was tne Ju4Se WINS Va
the law, in our humble opinion, lie erred. =,
Under the Constitution, az 0lichses "io h baa.
able: that is the general rule, but 1t IS sup1ecl
70 two exceptions. The first exception ~ III
captal oftenses "where the proof IS eVldcht OF
presumption great u 80
any OTHER cffenses; but with this dlference-
that the latter are absolutely bailabie, hoEere'
GIrat he presumption orcridcnt the PROOF OF M
guH of tie dccused; whilst IN the otllers ahe
accused is not entitled to relief except upon q
satisfactory showing of, at least, his pfopaolc
In the present case, tie offeuse not being cap
ital the accused were entitled to bail us mat
fer of rigllt-and hat. too, before preliminary
examination is had. The Supreme Court mas
held that persons arrested Tor o1enses nallap l
under the law are entitled to ball dnftng Wt
DeHdcncy OF their cxalnlHatlon 1oi ooniihitii'0i
In a yery elaborate opinion the Court in pass
ing upon this right say: During the necessary
DELAYS (pendnS between arrest ana prenml
nary exalninati0n), what is to be done with the
prisoner! He is not to be allowed to aDscOnu
of course. In England, he was remanded from
time to time to prison; and Chltty states that
the time for full investigation OF the case, anG
final decision of the magistrate, shOuld depenu
on the circumstances OF each case; ana that he
should not be restricted to any particular time
as a general rule, for either the prisoner or his
accllser may not be able TO bring forward his
evidence Immediately, and the compelling the
magistrate to discharge or to commit Wltnn
any limited time might be prejudlclal to the
nurposes OF Justice But our Constitution dc
c)arcs all persons shall be bailable by suflclen1
sureties, unless for capital ohenses where the
nroOf is evident or the presumption great
therefore, i'll the necessary delays Ill TIE exam
nation of the case, the prisoner IS entitled Dy
This article Of the Constitution to be Daled ny
Sufficient suretles until the magistrate, after
fnii examination and 1eiiberatiOn, should de
eide either to discharge him or bind him over
to the District Court TO be tried upon tue accu
sation OF stealing the Cattle" prisoner IN thai
case being charged with the crime OF larcenyD
In the instant case, prisoners were entltied l.
to bali immediately after arrest dHd penang q
preliminary examination and % to be dis chlrg
ed if innocent, or again remanded to jail III de
fault of giving the necessary bail bona required
by the court to answer the charge preferred
against them. This, we believe, is the correct
doctrine as defined by the Constitution and IN
terpreted by the Supreme Court. 70 nold Otn
erWise and permit the court to hold prisoners
pending examination in cases like the one I'M
der consideration, would be placing i'll his
hands power which he might be tempted III
some cases to arbitrarily exercise. LEX.