The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-08-16
WooDsFIELD OHIO, FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1914.

1ject into the present House of Representatives.
i We shall see what they will do with it. You ca
lreadily comprehend and feel what would be tn
effects and consequences of Dorrism here at tn
South, if Dorrism were predominant. Any un
Iprincpled adventurer would have nothing to d
but to collect around him MOSAIC majority, blacl
and white, aliens and citizens, young and old
male and female, overturn existing governments
and set up new ones, at his pleasure or caprice!-
What earthly security for life, liberty, property
would remain, if a proceeding SO fraught with con
fusion, disorder, and insubordination, were tolera
ted and sanctioned?"
| But the grand finale of all this is, that Thoma
w. Dorr is tried for treason and found guilty
The chiefjustice directed the clerk to ask the pris
oner fhe had any thing to say why sentence shoulc
not be pronounced. Mr. Dorr replied as follows:
The court have, through their officer, addressed
to the defendant the usual question, whether W.
have anything to say why sentence should not now
be pronounced upon him. have something tc
say, which shall be brief and ineligible to the
court, though it must pc necessarily unavaiIing.
Without seeking to bring myself in controversy
with the court, am desirous to declare to you the
plain truth.
am bound, in duty to myself, to express to you
my deep and solemn conviction that have not re-
ceived, at your hands, the fair trial by an impair.
tal jury to which, by law and justice, was en-.
titled.
In hac a1 10 tal-a ala IN
county where, to say the least, it was doubtful
whether the defendant could be tried according to
the law ofthe State; and in case of doubt like
this, he ought to have had the benefit of it, especi-
ally as the trial here must be 10 county to which
the defendant was stranger, in the midst of his
most excited political opponents.
All but one of those freehoders Zone hundred
and eight in number) who were summoned here
for the purpose of selecting jury to try the defen-
dant, were of the opposite party in the State, and
were deliberately set against the defendant with the
feelings Bipartisan hostility The single democrat
c juror was set aside for having expressed an opin-
ion. Of the drawn jurors, (sixteen in number
two only were members of the democratic party;
cause, was removed.
Every one Of the jury finally selected to try the
defendant was, of course, political opponent.
And even as so constituted, the jury were not
permitted to have the whole case presented to their
consideration. They were not, Gas in capital, If
notn all criminal cases, they are entitled to be)
permitted TO judge ofthe law and OF the fact. The
defendant and his counsel were not permitted to
argue to the jury any matter oflaw.
The court refused to hear the law argued to
except on the question whether treason
be and offence against State or against the Uni
ted States.
The court refused to permit the defendant to JUS
tiy himself by proving the constitution, the cleo
ion, and the authority under which he acted; or
p permit him to produce the same proofs, in order
o repel the charges of malicious and traitorous
motives made in the indictment, and zeaousy urg-
ID against him by the counsel for the State
By the charge of the judge, the jury were in
tructed that the only question which they had to
ry was, whether the defendant intended to do the
cts which he performed-a question of capacity
ather than OF motives and intentions
tits true that the jury were absent more than
wo hours; but not for deliberaton. One of them
vas asked, Immediately after the verdict was de-
ivered and the jury was discharged, whether they
lad been detained by any disagreement. He re-
lied, we had nothing TO do. The court had made
verything plain for us.
~, III Al.
hus rendered, the court promptly overrued all the
oints OF law.
The court also denied to the defendant an op- |
ortunity ofshowing to them that three OF the ju-
ors, before they were empannelled, manifested
trong feelings, and had made use of vndctive and |
ostile expressions against him personally, after
he defendant had established, by his affidavit, the
act that he was not informed of this hostility of
ceiling and expression before they were empannell-
d, and with regard to two of them, before the ver-
let was rendered. The defendant expected to
rove, by twelve witnesses that one Of these iu-
ors had expressed wish to have the defendant put
, death, and had declared, shortly after the ver-
let, to person nquiring the result, that he had
onvcted the defendant, and that this was what
e intended to do; that another juror had also de-
Jared that the defendant ought to be executed; and
lat the third had frequently made the same decla-
ltion, with wish that he might be permitted to
o the work of an executioner, or to shoot him as
e would serpent, and put him to death.
Nor would the court permit the defendant to
low by proofs which he declared, on oath, to
ave been unknown to him tthe time OF the en-
lnneing of the jury, that an array of twelve men,
on venire by deputy sheriff were, or
considerable part Of them at least, the same per-
ms who had been selected by an attorney ofthis
'urt who assisted the officer in the service of the
mmons.
These, and other matters which Twill not stop
enumerate, show that this trial, which has been .
rried through the forms Of law, was destitute of
Q reality ofjustice, and was but ceremony pre-
L.. NH n