The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-06-16
The Haywood Case
continued from Page Three.)

the proof is evident, or pre-
.ga.,~. whe" me l'''-
,u'F.' .@-rltutjonal provision continued
I"7 ...+f the adoption OF the consti-
ID t'@ 1858. The statutory provisions
al.'" to bail during this time are
i'll .'5'. .57rtcr 50, section 3. Revised
tai"N nj Revised Code, which provide
S''. .~n..t.ou with Haoeas corpus pro-
il t''' .t.+ the defendant shall be dis
c1''-r or admitted to bail unless 1T be
e-'7 apnear to the judge that the
u"-' 5.,.fned upon legal process, order,
IaL@ out of some court that has
81 ",.,..n Of criminal matters, or by
y-. ,.,1,Iut signed with the hand of
''. .,,rye of the Supreme or Superior
ID. .- some Justice OF the Peace, Tor
~. ..-.er- or offences for which by law
.rt.gaer is not ballable.'
%. there j., absolutely nothing found in
-ratutorv provisions which distin-
between bailable and non-bailablc
except a. distinguished IN the
'-. .+-rlsu. and nothing, either IN the
..+m or Constitution. to distinguish
.....a, the right to bail before and after
t.5.oe of the bill of indictment.
..,,- uuite clear that at common law
.I r,- not allowable after Indictment
+r.. r~rgltal offence.
aEa. Enc. ri. q Pr. p. 1858; 3 Vol. Am.
rng. Enc. Law, p. GIL.
Tr-- WAS the rule at common law and
., obtain, as the practice in England, as
i. .-I without question III this State until
very recently.
ra- MAS the rule laid down in the case
State ~. Dew, Taylor q N. CO "a;
.n5-rt is to be noted that the decision
.ua- me mo- wise made to turn oh the pro
visions of our constitution or statutes.
The question again received the atten-
+ian of our court in State VS.. Mills, 2
Dry. 420. where it was said:
"tfter bill found a defendant Is pre-
.amrd to be guilty to most, if not to ali,
rurpasa-. except that of a fair and i'm
nftal trial before Il petit jury. This
rr.,Jimutiou Is 50 strong that IN a case
Of q capital felony the party cannot be
let to bail
Here. too. no reference to the ~constitu-
touaI and statutory provisions is found
Is the basis of the decision of the court,
but it Is evidently based upon the well
recognized rule OF the. common law and
evident principles of public policy. For,
clearly. unuer the constitution and
statutes then existing, there was no dis
tmctlou as to the right to BAH before and
after Indictment.
The rule or practice of denying bail at
ter Indictment for Il capital offence has
been followed III the courts OF all tho
States aud also in the Federal Courts, with
few exceptions.
Such Is declared to be the law and pre-"
yaihug practice in:
Church on TIaheas Corpus, sec. 244, 405
L. :. vs. Ruse, 3 Wash. e. G. Rep. PA;
People vs.. Mcleod, / Hill, 377;
People vs.. Hylcr ct ais, , Parker's Grim
Rep. so:
lBuur:s Trials, 310:
People Y. finder, 10 Cal. $50.
One of the most valuable authorities il
this connection Is that of People V. finder
- Cal. $50, in which the opinion is de
Hyered by Field, G.. J. In that State tho
constitution contained Il provision lden-
teal with our constitution of 1776: and II
ra, provided by the Criminal Practice
Act of the State, sd person may be admit
ted to bail before conviction, as follows:
1t. as It matter of discretion in all cases
where the punishment Is death; End, as
matter OF right III all other cases" II
is >d.; by the Court: The Indictment Is
something more han a mere accusation
based upon probable cause; it is an accu
saton based upon legal testimony. of ;
direct and positive character, and IS the
oucurring judgment of twelve of til,
grand iI1lp1-a SaIaftnJ +n jnnlIIrn INTO nj
public offences committed, that upon The
evidence submitted to them the defend
ant Is guilty. Such being the case, al
Indictment for a capital offense does o.
r>er furnish a presumption of the guilt
OF the defendant too great to entltle hin
10 bail as a matter of right under the
constitution, or as a matter of discretion
under. the legislation of the State. j
creates "a presumption of guilt for all pur
poses except the trial before a petit jury
III Hight V. I. S. q Morris, 400, the
supreme Court says: "An indictment
furnishes no presumption of guilt agains'
d PRISONER when he is upon trial, but Sc
lar as 1T regards all intermediate proceed
Mss between the Indictment and the trial
ill furnishes the very strongest possible
presumption OF guilt and the finding o
ID NUe bill Is conclusive so far as to pur
..: accused upon his trial and to contro
"' Inc intermediate proceedings. .. :.
Inc doctrine Of the adjudged cases bot
l england and in the United States Is
"al m capital cases, on the application
'O Dali no inquiry can be lat as to TIN
.''ieure taken before the grand jury, a
"7 generations of that body arc sc
''J and the law does not permit the ties
Ln"ny received by them to be disclosed
justice Field c~onAnucs:
'aA alidayits or oral testimony be ad
4..1ei TO repel the presumption arisin;
"'a the Indictment?
we are clearly Of the opinion that the.
.'"', be- received. To permit such
PROCEDURE would result in rendering tn
,PP-'''l"n for bail in the majority O
~ III effect, ii trial upon the merits
RUE prevails i'll the Courts of nearl
state. 1t Is also the rule of th
s0'i4l Courts. In the case of the Unite
W.. Burr, the defendant, haVin
.5. '.i"tr1 Tor treason applied to b
"'.." 10 bail, and in the course of tn
nn ~1''h winch followed, inquired wheth
."' ''urt would go into testimony G,
r... No the Indictment, and Mr. Chic
Marshall replied, that he ha,