The record-union., 1897-12-10
THE DURRANT CASE AGAIN.

It is now conceded on all sides that
the men and press who rallied and
roared against the Supreme Court for
staying the execution of Durrant were
wrong, and moved rather by their pas
sions and impulses than by their judg-
ments. 1t is perfectly clear now to
the commonest comprehension that the
Supreme Court did precisely what the
statutes of the State command it to do
and that to have done less would have
been to violate the oath Of office and
wink at the gross perversion of the law
by the court below.
The law, as the "Record-Union' said
at the time in expressing its firm con-
viction Of the soundness of the hold
ing of the appellate court, was made
by the Legislature. 1t guarantees to
every convicted person the right to ap
peal from the judgment within
given time. 1t also guarantees the right
Of appeal from orders after Judgment.
This appeal may be taken within ten
days after the making of the order. But
it does not stay execution, says the
statute, unless the Superior Court or
the Supreme Court grants a writ Of
probable cause. Such appeal must
also be from an order affecting the
substantial right of the defendant
Now it was a substantial statutory
right of Durrant to have ten days
within which to perfect his appeal
from the order of Judge Bahrs, an or
der after judgment. since that order di-
rected the execution of the defendant
prior to the expiration of the ten days
given him by the written law. 1t was
therefore imperative upon the Supreme
Court to interpose on application being
made and stay the doing of gross in
justice, because the statute so COM
mands
The judgment of the Supreme Court
now is-that the appeal is without merit
in which Durrant claimed that confine-
ment In the State Prison awaiting ex-
ecution was such error as to profit him;
also, that the stay In the second case
by reason Of the grant OF the certificate
purpose, there is no merit In the second
appeal OF the defendant, and therefore
he must be again taken before the
court below for such order as the law
dLrects-namely, that another day for
his execution may be fixed.
We apprehend that no one in the
State Of California who has a mind ca
pable Of considering a simple question
Of human justice or of statutory law
such as that involved in these consid-
erations viii now venture to say that
the court below was either dignlfied,
self-respecting or ereditable in it's pro-
cedure; but will agree that its outrage
ously indecent order to hang Durrant
within the limit given him by the law
OF the State to take an appeal was
shameful.
If the court below had not made the
blunder-one that is entitled to oe more
severely desi signated-that ii did, in or
der apparently 10 cater to an infiamed
public sentiment, by this time Durrant
would have been executed and his case
finally
TIE lesson of the incident is that
in haste TO punish murderers we must
not do violence 10 the law of our own
creation, and whichwe havefull power TO
amend at will; that the shout against
so-called technicahties OF the law is
very often promoted out Of the mouth
of anger and hot blood, that technical
ity, so called, is very often not the
quibble of the hired advocate, the
chicane Of the criminal. nor the narrow
ness Of a Judge, but is the interposi-
ton OF safeguard for the preserya-
ton of the liberties, property and lives
OF the innocent.