The record-union., 1896-09-22
The District Attorneys Reply.

Eds. Record Union: My attention
has been called to an article in your
issue of to-day relative to the first
Wachhorst diamond robbery-the case
of people VS. H. j. Black-in which you
make use of statements which call for
some response at my hands.
You state that if the District Attor-
ney thought the order Of Judge Catlin
ganting Black a new trial was errone-
Gus he would have tested it by an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court. l will say
the reason the District Attorney did
not appeal from the order of Judge
Catlin granting Black a new trial was
because he deemed The ends Of justice
could be more speedily met by proceed
ing at once to a second trial, which
could be done several times over before
a decision upon the questions involved
in Judge Catlin's order could be had in
the Supreme Court.
The District Attorney was confident
that on the evidence ne had at hand a
conviction of Black could as surely be
had upon second trial as it was upon
the first. Evidently Black was of the
same opinion from what subsequently
developed.
You state further that ''the admis-
sion of Black to bail pending a new
trial upon straw bonds, or bonds that
were no good, was no affair of Judge
Catlin's, and a matter over which he
had no control, that the bonds were
given in San Francisco by sureties re-
siding there, and that it was approved
by the presiding Judge Of that city,
You are in error in the above. The
bond in the Black case was approved
by Judge Catlin, and he made the order
directing the Sheriff of Sacramento
County to release Black upon the bond
as presented
You are again in error in assuming
that Judge of the Superior Court of
the city and county of San Francisco
had legal authority to make an order
approving Blacks bond. 1t could, un-
der Section 1850 and 1881 of the Penal
Code and the law, be approved and the
order for the release of Black there
under be made, only by one of the
Judges of the Superior Court of Sacra-
mento County. in which the Black case
was then pending.
The District Attorney was not ad-
vised of the presentation of the bond
to Judge Catlin, nor that Black was
seeking to be released Hereunder, nor
that an order releasing him had been
made until some time after the bond
was approved and the defendant re-
leased from custody.
If the District Attorney had known
that the bond was about to be pre-
sented or approved, or had the court
even called my attention to the mat
ter, I certainly would have protected
the interests of the people of the State
by an examination of the bond and the
were worth the amount named in the
bend.
AS to whether or not the District At
tcrney has done his full duty and moth
ing but his duty in the prosecution
and trial Of H. J. Black for the Wach-
horst diamond robbery, I will simply
recommend anyone to careful investi-
cation and to a reading of the whole
record of the Black trial, and I have
nc fear what will be his judgment in
the matter. Yours respectfully,
FRANK d. RYAN,
District Attorney Sacramento County.
Sacramento, September 21st.
Auction Sale.
At 1896 r street Bell & Co. will sell
at auction, at 10 a. M. all the elegant
furniture therein consisting of parlor,
bedroom. dining-room and kitchen arti-
cles-a complete housekeeping outfit.