Show MORE EXCESSIVE BAIL now it is a US commissioner who is asking excessive ball bail yesterday two citizens ns sha shaw wand and gushing cushing gushi cushi I 1 were examined before commissioner on a charge of resisting U 8 officers and were held in ball bail each to answer to the district court the full penalty prescribed by law for this offense offence is imprisonment not exceeding twelve months and fine of not more than three hundred dollars full penalty can only bo be consistently inflicted when the offense offence is one of peculiar aggravation such as when the provocation comes wholly from the reals ter or when the act of resistance is of an uncommonly brutal or otherwise nna fla flagrant 0 rant char character ahter alter neither of these qualifications entered into the cases in question so far as we are informed the unpleasantness commenced with the provoking rudeness and insolence of the deputy marshal pratt whose sole business was to serve a summons or sub subpoena licena upon president B young to appear before the grandeury gran grand djury j ury uny as a witness A witness is not a criminal nor a person charged with crime he is a citizen at least an honorable citizen whose presence a simply required in court as a friend of law and justice to testify what he may know concerning certain matters charged as of fences committed by some other person or persons the serving of a summons upon a citizen as a witness therefore is especially an official service that should be performed civilly courteously and respectfully but this was not the case in the present instance the deputy is represented as acting in an impudent and insolent manner and in this he exceeded his duty he demanded to see ee president young and bon xon tipon being belner told that he was sick I 1 in n bed ed and could not be seen yet if the deputy could call again shortly prest youngs private secretary would be in and would attend to the business busine gs and after a little more insolence the deputy went away without serving the summons now the duty of the deputy according to U 6 laws did not require him to see president president young and his demand to sem see him arid and the accompanying rudeness were entirely gratuitous and the rudeness was exceeding his duty the deputy retired but returned with the marshal and the gatekeeper pro bably babiy supposing they designed to force an lin entrance to the presence of the president refused them admittance mit tance and a scuffle ensued and iha the gatekeeper was carried away prisoner if the deputy had properly presented ills his business as he was in duty bound he need not have insisted upon seeing the person summoned but could have left the summons at bi his shouse house and properly explained his errand which would have been all sufficient for him as a united states officer the marshal with several deputies returned and the subpoena was served upon the president not directly and personally by the marshal or a deputy but by the intervention of a third person thus showing that the marshals admit ed cd that personal service by an officer was not essential therefore why was it offensively insisted on at first indeed the marshal himself disclaimed any desire to push himself into the presence of the person subpoenaed if the deputy had llad shown as much sense at the beginning there would have havo been no unpleasantness the marshal Is pretty well known to be a profane gentleman and while on the premises is said to have indulged in pra profanity fanity which jils his duty did not require him to do and therefore in doing which he exceeded his hla duty now the law does not render it imperative upon any man to have profane language hurled at him oven even by an officer of the law and especially upon tile the premises prem isei of another citizen it app appears enrit mr lur dishing was ws indignant at this official profanity and gave the marshal a push to remind him that he was ina place where profanity was wag not acceptable this was not resisting the marshal in the execution of his duty for it had nothing with his no stretch of duty in a IT S official requires him to uso use profane lan ian an guage anywhere es especially chally all ali u upon 0 n another mans premises prem isea isca besides aises des it was an infraction of a city ordinance as will appear by the following which we publish for the benefit of the marshal and his deputies and all other addicted to profanity any person profaning the name of deity shall be subject to a fine of not less than one nor more than wn tn dollars or from one to five days hard labor or both at the discretion of the court ay now iu in regard to exciting to an assault as the impudence ence of the deputy deput yand and the profanity of the marshal appear to have done the two persons charged with resisting them here is another city ordinance bo it further ordained that if any person shall provoke another to an assault by menacing insulting slanderous or abusive language he shall be be liable to a nine nibe in any sum not exceeding fifty dollars or imprisonment not elc exceeding eed two months or both at the discretion of the court now it appears that marshal and deputy made themselves liable under one jf if not both these ordinances and a nd in all this they also exceeded their duty under the tile united states laws tho the gentlemen of the law will tell a man may forcibly forel b ly oppose even a person in author authority I 1 ty if in certain cases he abuse suc such sueh h authority and do more than he lle was wag authorized to do which it appears these officials diff did under these strong provocations pro vocations then commissioner enst bo be considered wk aft asking excessive ball bail for if the court should subsequently find the two persons guilty it would be under the extenuating circumstances of strong and wilful aggravation on the part of the officers and therefore anything morg more than a very light penalty if any at all would be entirely unreasonable and un savor of vindictiveness |