In Re Tsuji Horiuchi

AMES, J.,

pro

tem.

The petitioners, fourteen in number, were indicted by the grand jury of the county of Imperial for the crime of criminal syndicalism, as defined by an act of the legislature known as the “Criminal Syndicalism Act,” approved April 30, 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 281). Upon their arraignment the Superior Court fixed their bail at fifteen thousand dollars each. They thereupon sued out a writ of

habeas corpus

from this court, and the sole question to be determined is whether or not the amount of bail fixed by the Superior Court is excessive.

It is well settled by the decisions in this state that the Supreme and Appellate Courts will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the court in which the indictment was found, in the matter of fixing the amount of bail, unless it should appear

per se

that the amount so fixed is unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.

(In re Williams,

82 Cal. 183 [23 Pac. 118].) It is said in the case of

Ex parte Ruef,

7 Cal. App. 750 [96 Pac. 24, 25], that “it is not sufficient that this court might originally have deemed a lesser amount sufficient. It must clearly appear that the trial court has abused its discretion before this court will reduce the amount.”

(Ex parte Duncan,

53 Cal. 410;

Ex parte Duncan,

54 Cal. 75.)

For the purpose of fixing the amount of bail this court will assume the guilt of the accused. In

Ex parte Duncan,

53 Cal. 410, the Supreme Court said: “We must assume in this proceeding, that the petitioner is guilty of ten distinct felonies of which he is indicted. We must assume his guilt though when he shall he tried it may be made to appear that he is wholly innocent of all the charges.”

(Ex parte Ryan,