Amador ledger., 1901-08-02
PROSECUTION VS., PERSECUTION

PROSECUTION VS.. PERSECUTION.
The district attorney of Amador
county seems to be extremely ten
der on the subject of persecution,
Judging from his fare-up in the
courtroom in the second fasco trial
of the snake-charmer this week
when the question happened to be
raised by the defendants counsel in
his opening statement to the jury.
We are reluctant to believe, except
upon overwhelming proof, that any
public servant would knowingly as
sumo the role of oppressor, and
we are free to admit that we have
always looked upon the prosecuting
officer as above being influenced in
his official conduct by Interior mo-
tives and we should be extremely
sorry to be compelled to change our
opinion by the inexorable logic Of
facts. The record of an officer is
is public property, and we claim
the right to criticise that rec
ord within reasonable bounds. Fur
thermore, we hereby serve notice
upon all concerned that we propose
to freely and fearlessly exercise that
right whenever in our judgment the
interests of the people demand, and
especially when the liberty of a
defenseless, moneyless, and molten
sive stranger is the stake in issue.
The district attorney may think the
prosecuting machinery is moving
strictly along the lines of law and
good government; we think other
wise, and believe that personal and
unworthy motives have been inject
ed into this so-called prosecution OF
crime; and believing this, we would
. be untrue to ourself and false to
zour duty as journalist if we failed
to raise our voice in protest.
Now then, let us call attention to
: some Of the features of this case
which are utterly incomprehensible
from the standpoint of legitimate
prosecution. In the first place, why
did the sheriff force himself into the
case at all? Why did he make the
arrest without a warrant after the
lapse of sixteen hours after the al
legged offense had been committed?
Was there not constable in this
township at the time, whose sworn
duty it was to serve all processes
issued out of the Justices court in
misdemeanor cases? Why this rush
on the part of the sheriff to forestai!
the constable on his own official
ground? But above and beyond all,
why was not some effort made to
prevent any infraction of the law
if such it was-on the part of the
snake charmer in the child-exhibi-
ton business? The law under which
he is being prosecuted, has been the
law of this state for over twenty
years, although somewhat changed
by the last legislature. The family
had Travelled over the state in the
same calling and had not been mo-
Tested. Why did not the officer in
form him that it was violation of
the law which would subject him to
arrest if persisted in. Is it not as
much in the line of an officers duty
to prevent the commission Of crime
as it is to punish a crime after it is
committed? If this course had been
pursued, is there uany reason to
doubt that the family would have
left the town; there would have
been no excuse for thrusting the
defendant into durance vile; the
county would have been spared this
heavy expense and the officers
saved considerable hostile comment
and not a little mental anguish.
Then, again, after the accused put
up cash bail Of $50 why was he
arrested again on a similar charge
and thrust into Jail within few
hours, and kept there all night With.
out any attempt to take him before
a magistrate to have the amount Of
bail fixed. Was not this an infringe
ment Of the substantial rights of the
defendant under the law, which pro.
yides that person accused Of crime
must be taken before the nearest
magistrate without unnecessary de-
lay2 What laudable motive could
have prompted this autocratic con