Arizona republican., 1913-01-04
Basis of Ten Thousand Dol lars for Each Year of Sentence is Used ill De tclmining the Bonds to Be Required
SEVENTY THOUSAND
 FOR RNAN'S RELEASE
Judges Baker and Seaman Hear Arguments and h. innate That Undue Haste May Have Been Used in Committing Prisoners
ASSOCIATED PRESS D1sPArcHl

CHICAGO. Jan 3.-BaiI in the sum of one million. one hundred thousand dollars for g of the B union leaders convicted at Indianapolis must be forthcoming in order that they may take advantage of the granting today of writ of supersedeas by the United States circuit court of dp- n, aIs here. Whether this amount cal hr obtained it k admitted by coun- scI for the defendants will be question of grave doubt but they eX- pressed the belief that at least some of it can be obtained-enough to ac- complish the liberty of President Ryan and a few others until de- ciSion is reached by the reviewing court.
 Sixty days is allowed for the ffl- ing of an appeal Hockin. designated d. an "inforlner" did not appeal Judges Baker and Seaman heard the arguments and the decision was ar ally given by Judge Baker. He took occasion to intimate that there was undue haste manifested in commit ting the defendants to prison. The writ was issued largely on point raised by the defense. that the de- fcndants were convicted of continu- ing offense-a conspiracy to commit offenses continuously
 The fixing Of the amount of bail by the court was influenced by the fact that the offenses involved are not eNtraditable Judge Anderson, who presided at the trial. was au- thorized to pass on the suitable ade- uuacy of the bonds offered. A basis of ten thousand dollars for each of the sentenced was used in fixing the amount. As Ryan was sentenced to seven years his bond was fixed at seventy thousand dollars. and the same ratio was preserved throughout for the others.
 Judge Baker said in commenting on the errors alleged by the defense against the trial court:
 In this case q writ of error as an absolute right for d writ of super sedeas is not an absolute right. II has been the practice III federal crim- inal prosecution. however, to allow writs of supersedeas so as to release the prisoners under bail until the case is finally decided by q review While the judgment of the tria court is presumably correct. yet there is q possibility of substantia error-an error so great that the con- viction may not be sustained. Fol that reason the defendants should not be subjected to the ignominy of in carceration while their cases are be- ing reviewed. and writs of supersed- cas should issue when shown they are asked for in good faith and no on frivolous grounds or to merely de lay the progress of justice.
 The chief error assigned in thi! case is that the defendants were tried on the theory of continuing { conspiracy As far as we have beer able to learn there is no decision which definitely considers this point The question is to be determined D! reasoning and analogy to precedent The question as to whether the de fendanets should be tried for con spiracy in connection with one of fense has not been definitely ad judiciated and there is possible grounds for d difference of opinion In such circumstances 1t is the ord mary and customary practice to ad init the defendants to bail"