New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-04-16

p.usity. AID an AFRAID s'e SOMETIMES r'+l u =
uri1st hsble vrrd o in order fbst they may %
10 the p-ei0dce o. the penstg . m -hi ~'n l-'l
as rrnrh proprtefy b. used . ;he Pre- ~ RI. q
Law itself The severity II the penalty o-.h' o. ri
and ia all cases whore The nature q tie isF+ ih-
yules ~ e.,der-. I'D the resD0rs.t f-E ~ ll-'f'
are -ish,ly charged By The Jatrc. - b. ~
the strongest y7a~a1,ees D tn 1c-fs~' l'f a-
fo1oariisii-i md mt vcrt'c' Ihe '1 =.
evidence shoud rave been c'eary ma1e fh3"- "
the jury .a the case a. DR. Web'fe- o.. -'-
Grand role ,aat Niii.e 'Ir c.i. cases 80 r7f --'
e he e.ide,ce on the whole sgrees " - tal s'p
ports the b. po'hess ~h'ch t - sifnce' . po.r
i, criminal csses . must exclude every one y
l,othesis b1t tdat If 10 c1at - NE parry
aot fad hat ,hsse rlils ~e~s lard down - '1'-7
Shaw f,hey had ben ~ no, WOE t '-'
could have b-oultt in a v,rdr. n ~ -
The pcnslty Tor n4risr being death lt '1' t.'J
4 the ia ~ ani the i1dyes 20 500 % MAJ ne
crime be sbxo'l'eiy proved ~ tie 'eT1ic- 'ND+l'
BE- broken Sow IL laws p. our DJ'e I'D. ~ a'
those Of he Divine q verumeut p-oF''" .+
SIRE proof u the c-ine e1d tr2f D-ih2 ''-aN ''''
then IL, ias,i . have = ray. Exceedingly s0.. nln
and s,,kn, are the provisions in M ID ,iae Lax
soaust u,irng N innocent Io1n % death ~ in tn
vvtose go,t is no, proved tn. j. tile La DE
n.,pd. Do.;.ive esiIeuce "ht the m1gle ~ f*o
witnesses or three wi'nesses. shah be t1at -
worthy % death be- pn, 20 death, bu, e. t'e NOUN
Of one witness he shall ugt be pat % death
Mark the extreme caution IN this case aa- tle
determhst o. n have sC,derce, and not mere oDf'
ioH for sentence against the s1i'ty. 4 man may
be a really guilty man. really worthy ri 0ea'''
rea criminal hot thcro must be g"tf'"S' ~ p
shall not be- pr 20 death, ueiiner shsi f ~.
witness be sofici ntr S1ch are some ~ me gaze
guards which the Author Of the penalty OF 1taih
Tor the crime 81 murder has thrown round o., 'li
dirt u prevett the possibility u ~ llnoTflt 'ia
ever being put 20 d 18th NoF II ~. " fns'7f
trisl went agsinst these safeguards; " tle Flifr
evidence were not adhered % aud o. me humane
spirt Ofthe Divine La =, Tequ ring ofrf0ir'y n Tue
z,,,of Of murder were .isrega-iot. Weu though
The criminal be n real criminal and worthy o. death
vet the trlal and the SIC, On ust The proce
1are II no, s'r.ctlv sccortnr % the humane rules
Of evidence. Nns Illegal and unsafe
II YOU ask upOu this " WHAT, then. shan Do done
with such an undoupted criminal Shall Boz b. al.
lowed 20 escape for waut q pos tive evidence sild
turned loose utOn society, nO man dogbung That ne
IA guilty bat no mar sbi3 % 70 wet INN An
swer Ceraiuly a. TO The penalty OI death. fon
may have evidence Sufficient 20 convict nim of
rnanslaughte- md prevent him from going AZ large
but not enough 20 convict him OF murder prenai-
itated and so % sentence him T. death u may
be trOrfhv of death bat no must not be- PIT b 'ath
without evidence suiicieut and certain evidence
There IL tins distinction ~ the Divine Law m re-
gard 10 murder--a most righteous sud human" as
Junction; bat because ths criminal Is not put Nv
dcaih Il does not follow that be be disn4iefrf an
scaihfd AID # you have nothing better 70 al.
swer 10 this than the random assert on ihst no
gro or a poor mnu would be twisted up without
mercy. # ho were IN the place Of DR. " cbster,
merely say that this would be equally slarng
Injustice and II % wore true that would De- com.
united on a negro or a po'r msn that no reason
why It should aso be- committed GA any other ma
Bat IT Is not true. A negro or poor man WOhI
not be put 70 death against evidence o. without
evidence, IA New York 81 Massachusetts,. any more
readily than fich m1n. Nay, there IS mo bid
10 D. n. tod -
get some respectable man 10 suier It. And a,D
afraid that Just ~ the time respectable man, go
called. would stand less chance Of Jlstcc than
negro and a m screant 50 called But thls makes
40 difference in the merits Of The case, nor IS q
ANY argument against the righteous penalty a. /
death for murder Iii stro'c argument, Ia ey |
ery way, why "A man, be he high or o~. rich or !
Deor bond or rec, should not be convicted Of the
crime OF murder. except in accordance with law
and evidence. When Jury say, GU,ifV ~ pIf
nleditafed murder they should have something more
than theory and iuiereHces, or dead man 3
teeth and pa pers t. ground such verdict upon.
Now To my mind there appears no evidence ~
the case 10 instiiy the theory OF the Government,
that this murder was premeditated and on the con
trary, that which they bring forward as The ground
OF this theory. and ~ part the proof Of H. the NV
tation of Dr. parkman by DR. Webster 10 meet him
at his laboratory 1T the hour when the murder IL
alleged 10 have been committed. goes strongly
againGt this theory. nan intending to com ant
murder does not ordinarily Ilacard 4 at the corners
of the streets. nor sOund trumpet before hun as
ii lie were pharisce going to prayer. man IN
tending to commit murder would not have invited
Ls victim openly 10 meet hun at h $ own prcmses,
stating III. time aud place o ihe murder and leas-
ipe clear trail ior the family oi the victim 10 step
in and hnd han ut his w)rk--lotinc the appoint
meut be known at the same time 20 every beng
whom the man might encounter aud converse with
on the way to The slaughter and every being WHO
might see the man entering the place OF deaih-the
time being iull uOon and the place public lnStitU
tion To my mind DR. WebsieT's note OF invitation
20 Dr. PakmGn is proof positive against the pre-
meditation OF murder then, It IS rather proof that
such a IN ng was not dreamed of But At not then,
there is no proof that II was premediistcd after.
ward. whstevcr reason here b. for believing that
1t was committed. There u 40 prog OF prcmedl.
tst,on. and therefore there should not lAVe been
the verdict OF prcmeddauon.
Now, although the prcmedlta,on and malice
aiorethought Ot oven one moment Is williu murder.
vet II is 10 be remembered that the Government
did no, put 1t upon that ground They brought IN
what they called prooi OF prem Hdiiation OF hours
and even days before the murder is ALLEGED to have
been Committed Ii msu even in a sudden provo
cation, strikes another with an instrument OF death
an instrument the blow OF which is hkely t. cause
DEATH and Nils him. that Is willlul and malicious
murder, Guess done Ia sen defense. But there is
no proof ot that; The only proof Of reconciliation
ia much more deliberate much longer beforehand .
SO far beforehand indeed, that with the circum
stance Oi public notice, o' which nature The Ia.
,itauon Of DE- W chster to D. Parkmsn nast be
resardedl 1t DESTROYS ITSELF stu,t,hes itself There
is therefore, me- proof oi malice sh.ethOughi what
ever probability there be. both side sni the
other, OF quarrel Nor would the quarrel or any
sudden provocation, justly murder which. a il
were committed ever suddenly ever uneXpeci
edly would still be murder. except in seltdoiense.
Bat the d,thcaty is there Is 10 more proof OF any
snch murier, no pnNf OF any sndden quarrel and
sudden mardci than there Is cyoof OF the prfglafa
,ioa Of murder for days aud weeks besor, hsnd
What, then can be done in such a case Shall the
rules OF evidence be regarded. Or shall theory. snd
Inference, and sironS opinion merely, authorize
verdict ct prcmedtated mnrdeT
We turn now t. the charge Of the Judge. IL az
pears To me rather as oo>,l special plea against