Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1844-07-18

The GLOWING is in substance The reply f Nr. Dcrr
10 Tic Court on receiving the sentence.
The Court ha.c. through her OF -cr. addressed to
the defendant the u~ull question whether lac have any
thing to say why sentence shpuld nltnFW ie Irp-
naunccd u,,5n HIM. have something t. >av. which
shall be brief and Ineligible to tie Court. though ii
must be nercS .ar.ly unaYaliug. Witlipu. seeking TO
bring myself INTO controversy with the our am d.
s,rou, 20 declare 20 you the PLAIN truth.
am bound. in day 10 MYSELF, to cZprc,' - you
ny deep and solemn conviction that have not re-
ccivcd. al your hands, the far iril hy IN Impartial!
Jury. 10 who by law and justice | wa> entitled.
The trial ha, been permitted II take llacc M caun-
" where. u say the least. it was d,Gb.iol WActAcr
the Defendant could be tried according 20 tic law OF
Tie State: and in n case OF doubt like tlrs, hc ought
to have had the benefits Of IT. especially n the trial
here must be in a county 20 which the Dcicndant was
n stranger, in the md t Of his most excited pol teal
opponents.
All but enc Of those f,ccholdcrs, les in number,
who we're summoned here for the purpose of selecting
n jury to try the defend mt. were of tho opposite par
" in the State. and were deliberately set against the
defendant with the feelings Of %rartizan hostility. The
single democratic Juror was set aside for having cN-
pressed an opinion. OF the drawn jurors. sixteen IN
number, two only were members of the dem cratic
party and one Of them for cause, and the other for
alleged cause. was removed.
Every one of the jury finally selected to try the de-
PENDANT, was, of course. his political opponent.
And even a. so constituted. the Jury were not PER
mltted to have the whole case presented To thor con
sidcration. They were not, as in CAPITAL. Il not IN
all criminal cases. they are entitled To be permitted TO
Judge of the law and of the fact. The defendant and
his counsel were not permitted T. argue 70 the jury
anv matter of law.
The Court refused to hear the law argued to them
selves, except on the question whether treason be an
offence against a State or against the Jnlicd Safes.
The Court refused TO permit the defendant To iu>ti-
fy himself by proving the Constitution, the election
- - q. .--,A.
him to produce the same proofs, in order To rePcl the
charges of malicious and t%raltOrOuS motives made IN
the md ictmcnt. and zcalou>ly urged against HIM By
the counsel for the State.
BY the charge of the Judge, the Jury were instruct
ed that the only question which they had to try was.
whether the defendant intended 10 Do tie acts Which
he performed a question Of caTac.'y rather then #
motives and intentions.
Ii IS true the Iurv were absent more than two hours /:
but not for Elaboration. One of them was asked, I'M
mediatcly after the verde; was delivered. and the NJ
~ was discharged. Whether tLcy had been detained
bv anv disagreement. He REPLIED. " had nyfh ~
to do, the Court had made every thing PLAIN fr u>.'
On hearing a bill of exception, to the verdict thus
rendered. the Court promptly ovcrrulcd all the ro.nt,
Of law.
The Court also denied tho dafsndpnt az or7ort.ni-
T. Of showing - tlcm that tree of TIE Jurors. before
they were en- anncllod. manifested strong f,eang..
and had made u-cof 1ind-c;ivc anl hstl ecvt --i IL
against i'm rcr, nallg: afsr the dfH.lnt Ind c.
taAl shed by E. affidavit Tire fact lat Ire Ha~ MT III
formed f tdS hostility If fslur aad eNI re.isn BE-
FIRE they We're cmeaEne-el. ami YIN r,-frd = two
81 ;Acia. before the verb was rrd rc.. TIE d.
fndaut expected =, fs3xe h taelse w.'ae~ rs. that
one If these. Jur.rs had cT- 'escd VIII - Aafe tie
defendant ft t. d,at4: ant hal DESIRED. - af
ter tho vc-d -. - pr aa lnl.rn- tic result. t.at
he lad convicted lie detndaA., ard Tux tl~#a
what hc intended = d.; thai aa'.Aer IMrsr hal al-D
dccls re6 That Tie q fHiant ought - r. cNerusa. nad
.t..t 80 dill lt f.rrarl - f..I4 f4 -nfl.. l.-.H-1-