American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1845-06-30


having been made, that the houses in the stree's
through which the procession willmoyc to-mor-
row. Shall be placed in mourning, We hope
that all persons will feel it duty SO to do Us
j. would look bad 10 have portion Only oI tie
Lgiscs thus decorated.
NIcCuRny's CoNrLssIoN. We promised N
our last to take some notice Of this gampA.e,
which purports to be the contess.on OF Henry
McCurry, and we nov proceed to redeem our
pedge. But before entering into an cXamna-
ton of the statements contained in the comics
son, we most solamnly protest against the nor
rible doctrine inculcaed in the last paragraph,
where McCurry says-"l believe that God
VINO can and sften does draw good out OF evil,
permitted this calamity to betall me as the oc-
cason Of saving my soul, which, in all probabl-
l,ty, | should otherwise have lost" We are
commanded in the Holy Writ, to edo no mur-
der" but if McCurry be correct, murder is
pleasing in the sight Of God, and is 4 sure
means of procuring salvation. Had he contn-
ucd to be ga sober honest, industrious, inottcn-
slve and good hearted man as McCurTy states
himself to have been previous to the murder OF
Mr. Roux, he thinks that his soul would in all
probability. have been lost-but having delibe-
rateIy taken the lie OF an unotfcndlng and con-
fding stranger, IN the most inhuman and bar
barous manner-he presumptuously claims me-
rt for the act as being in accordance with the
will of God, for the safety of his soul. Ifsuch
Al
derers will become martyrs, and the gallows
the safest road to Heaven. We protest against
the dissemination of such abominable princ!-
pies. They were advanced in the case of Horn,
and are now rei;erated by McCurry-and if
permitted to 90 unreproved, we may soon en-
pect to receive our religion and morality from
the mouths of indicators, instead of from the
teachings of Scripture The door to all man
Ter of crime will be thrown wide open, for the
criminal will be taught, as AlcCurry maintains,
that the Lord has permitted tie offence to save
the soul of the offender! We hope that there
are few who desire to receive instruction from
such teachers as Horn and McCurry.
And now to the confession. McCurry at-
n
without motive. He struck him two blows on
the head with an axe, which deprived him OF
life but he denies that he cut his throat-and
yet it was cut-by whom? If not by McCur-
ry then there was another person concerned
but McCurry expressly acquts all Others IRON
participating in the murder. "None else hat
any knowledge of what did nor any hand II
it," The question then recurs, by whom was
Roux's throat cut! Did some one else ente
the room after McCurry had left it, and Gu
the throat Of the dead man? What could O
the motive for such an act? McCurry says h
did not rob Roux Of more than his watch ant
breast-pin-and we presume that he intends /
to be inferred, that what he left was stolen by
another, who cut the victims throat as pre-
caution against detection. But is it true, as
stated in the confession, that "the watch and
the breast-pin were the only articles that
(McC.} took?n Let us refer to the testimony
of Mr., Ridgley (the officer by whom McCuF-
nv was arrested} on this point. That gentle
man stated in his evidence on the trial, that,
when he arrested McCurry in New York, "a
gold watch was in his pocket, with gold guard
and fob chain, which lie said he purchased in
Cincnnati a set ring was taken from his fin
ger and purse from his pocket containing a
small amount of money, among lcijch lca5 a
Georgia gold piece, &c.''--that OF searching his
trunk several shirts and other articles Of cloth
ing were found in it, "0f so small character as
TO contradict any idea Of their being the property o
.McCurry, and erery lray suited to the person Of
ROur.n Can any one doubt that the Georgia
gold piece and the clothes here described were
the property Of Roux and were stolen by Nc
Curry Roux was from Geogia, and the evi
dence of Nolan shews, that on the morning af
ter the murder McCurry paid his passage tc
Philapelp hia and other expenses in gold, and
it is clear that he took it from Roux. 1t is ii
proof that he paid the expenses from purs
which Mr.. Nolan had never before seen. Iii
said by McCurry that he did not take a cent o
Roux's money, although he confesses that h
examined one of his pockets in which he founc
ga small gold coin and cent or two" 1t
certain that after the murder he had abundance
of money, principally gold, for we find him no
only purchasing present for child, and pay
ing for it in gold, but treating all hands in Mr.
Nolan's tavern. Is it to be presumed, that h
murdered Roux simply for the pleasure o
shedding innocent blood? If the money in hi
possession honestly belonged to HIMSELF and h
in reality did not rob Roux, then he committed
apremeditated murder without motive, whcl
no man Of common sense can believe.
Let us now look at another portion of hi