The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,
•

TIMES.—The remarkable trial which closed on
on Saturday is no unfair specimen of the method
by which the criminal law of this country attains,
or at least seeks to attain, the ends of justice. That
process, familiar as it is, is far more difficult, be-
cause conducted under far stricter conditions, than
would appear at first sight. Nothing looks simpler
than the management of a criminal case, and by-
standers are often tempted to imagine that they
could themselves perform the duties of counsel,
judge, or jury, perhaps of all together, without any
great effort, and quite as effectually as the respon-
sible actors. A very little experience utterly dissi-
pates this delusion. The plain and coherent story
which is told in the opening speech of the prosecut-
ing counsel may be the product of a most laborious
investigation, aided by all the resources of science,
and the points insisted on may have been selected
with infinite care from a mass of chaotic materials
too vast and various for an untrained mind to have
digested. The examination in chief, which seems
the easiest thing in the world, requires no ordinary
skill to bring out the whole knowledge of the wit-
ness without violating any rule of evidence; and
cross-examination, if practised according to the
popular theory of it, would, in nine cases out of
ten, do the prisoner more harm than good. Perhaps
the speech for the defence is the part of the proceed-
ings which is best appreciated by the public ; but
the disadvantages under which it frequently has to
be made are such as the public cannot fully come
prehend. The Judge's task, where it is confined
to reading over his notes, cannot, indeed, be con-
sidered very arduous, but where it embraces a
careful analysis of the case and an elimination of
everything irrelevant, it is a mental exercise of the
highest kind. All these necessary stages in the con-
duct of a trial were carried out with marked ability
in the prosecution of Muller, and the humane
maxim of our law, that where human life is at
stake no trouble can be superfluous, has seldom
been more scrupulously obeyed. The address of
the Solicitor-General on Thursday possessed the
great merit of stating the whole case without over-
stating it or encumbering it with doubtful matter.
If it be compared with the evidence and the reply,
it will be found that nothing of any importance had
afterwards to be retracted or supplied, and that the
only new feature introduced by the defence was the
alibi. Now that we know all that was to be said,
the conclusion appears self-evident, but nothing
short of a judicial inquiry could have thus sins■
plified the problem. It was above all things essen-
tial to show that several independent trains of
reasoning converged into the proof of Muller's guilt.
A single chain cannot be stronger than its weakest
link, but the united strength of several chains el.
ceeds that of the strongest among them. The
disposing of Mr. Briggs' chain on the Monday
morning after the murder, and the being feund in
possession of a hat corresponding to his on board
the Victoria,:were no doubt:most suspicious circum-
stances, but neither of them would have added any
force to the other, had the identity of the two
articles rested on the same presumption. As it
was, each was proved by separate testi-
mony, and the attempt to cast doubt on
the identity of the latter opened up another
track leading in the same direction. But suppose
ing all the witnesses who swore to Mr. Briggs's
property had been discredited, there was
still the fact of a hat exactly resembling
Nluller's being found in the railway carriage, and
the more this fact was sifted the more incredible
did it turn out to be that it should have belonged
to any one else. Here, then, were three distinct
grounds for believing Muller to be the murderer;
a fourth was furnished by the unquestionable dis-
covery of Mr Briggs's watch in Muller's box at
New York. These four clues had to be followed
out one by one, not only in court but long before,
when their bearing upon each other was much less
manifest. The certainty produced by their con-
verxence amounts to a moral demonstration, always
provided that no explanation can be given of so ex-
traordinary a coincidence. The whole cogency of
what is called circumstantial evidence turns upon
this. It has been urged with considerable force
that the use of this phrase is calculated to mislead,
and it is probably not the best which could hare
been chosen to express the distinction implied in it ;
but the distinction itself, as expounded by the Chief
B iron, is real and most important. Mr Dcath's
testimony was direct evidence of Muller's exchange
ing Mr Briggs's chain ; it was circumstantial evi-
dence, coupLd with other facts, of his having taken
Mr Briggs's life. An inference had to be drawn
from it beyond that which it attested conclusively,
and this inference, though strengthened indefinitely
by like inferences from circumstances of like signi-
ficance, might have been scattered to the winds by
proof positive, direct and trustworthy proof, that
the fact inferred did not occur. What justifies
conviction on circumstantial evidence is, not that it
sfinnla be overwhelming it.oir, but tt—t it
should also bo unrefuted. It is simply inconceiv-
able that appearances should so conspire against
an innocent man, and yet that he should have no
key to the myMtcry. If Mr S-2rgeaut Parry had
been able to recount for any one of the tokens
of guilt, to which we have referred, he would have
sensibly we honed the argument on the part of the
Crown, and if he could have conjured away either
of the two fiats, no one can say what the issue of
the trial would have been. He failed to do to, not
for want of that art which breaks the sequence of
an opponent's reasoning, but simply because no
human fancy could have invented an. hypothesis at
once consistent with the truth and with Muller's
innocence, Had the interrogation of the prisoner
been authorised by our law, his conviction would
doubtless have been more summary, but it could
not have been more inevitable than it was after the
breakdown of the alibi, and the cross-examination
of the nonchalant Mr. Lee. When we say that this
trial reflects credit on our administration of justice,
we are far from assuming the superiority of our own
system, in all respects, to that of our neighbours.
The want of a public prosecutor is sometimes a very
serious evil, though it may be outweighed by the
blessing of being free from the espionage and inter-
ference of such an officer. The provision for the
defence of prisoners, in other cases than murder, is
obviously defective; there is something to be said
for allowing an accused person to volunteer evidence
valeat quantum, and there are difficult questions
about the qualifications of juries and the finality
of their verdicts. Still, the nobler qualities of
English character are generally displayed, in an
impressive form, on a trial for murder. A foreign
spectator would have found nothing to condemn in
the solemnity of the spectacle, in the calm and
dispassionate statement of the Solicitor-General,
in the demeanour of the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, or in the honourable manner in which Mr
Sergeant Parry discharged a most unenviable duty.
Not the slightest trace of prejudice against Muller
could have been discerned in any part of the pros
ceedings, and if the charge of the Lord Chief Baron
wqs adverse to an acquittal, it was only because the
rules of commonsense, applied to such facts, left no
room for two opinions. The same remark may be
extended, as we venture to think, to the general
conduct of the press in respect to this murder, a
subject upon which the Lord Chief Baron adopted
a very different tone from that of Mr Sergeant
Parry. To withhold from the public the details of
a case like this until the suspected party shall be
brought to trial is not only practically impossible;
it would also be highly impolitic, and would often
defeat the ends of justice. In commenting upon
them discretion is of course needed, but absolute
reticence as to the effect of notorious facts would
be mere affectation. Such was the nature of Mule
ler's crime, and Bush his own infatuation after com-
mitting it, that the prima facie evidence against
him was complete and crushing %hen Inspector
Tanner was sent in pursuit of him. He was pre-
judged only in this sense, and no sooner did his
unexpected assertion of innocence reach this coun-
try than the voice of criticism was hushed. In
electing to be tried by an English jury ho showed a
just confidence in the impartiality of our tribunals,
and the result is so entirely satisfactory that his
confession, however much to be desired for his own
sake, could add nothing to the certainty of his
guilt.

HERALD.—Mr. John Bright is a much bolder
man than Mr. Richard Cobden. The sentiments
which the latter scarcely ventured to reveal in his
private letter to Mr Scovell, the former boldly avows
in his public communication to Mr Horace Greeley.
Mr Cobden, with the deference and caution of a
courtier (he has been to the Tuilerieq), while praiss
ing the "amiability" of the Federal President,
merely suggested to his Yankee friends the course
which he thought they ought to pursue as the most
likely to ensure their ultimate success. " Persevere'
is the gist of his advice. " Persevire, you have more
money, or, at least, more greenbacks, and a greater
command of men than your antagonists—scatter the
the one broadcast, and sacrifice the others reck-
lessly in continuous and harrassing, though fruit-
less assaults, and if you will but disregard the loss
of life and waste of treasure, it is evident that you
must in the end bear down all opposition;' Mr.
Bright does not coefine himself to side-winded and
ambiguously-expressed counsels. The election of
his distinguished friend, Abraham Lincoln, is at
stake, and he cannot avoid telling Mr. Horace
Greeley, for the benefit of all Yankeedom, " what
is passing in his mind," and " he wishes, it possible,
to send him a word of encouragement." It is a
curious instance of the facility with which dis
honest politicians can assume and cast off princis
ples, as it suits their interests or convenience to do
so, to find the man of peace, who in the House of
Commons whines over sufferings of an Irish cotter,
ejected because he could not, or would not, diss
charge his stipulated engagements, and who de-