The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1850-05-22
From the New York Sun.

The Law Reporter, n Magazine cdi cd
arMwrttcnshy some of the ablcst minds
of New England, and published at Bns-
ton, has In its May number powerful re-
viesvsef tho Webster trial, taking strong
grounds against the verdict The writer
confines himself mainly to the question,
how far public opinion controlled the trial,
and from history Of circumstances, indc.
pendent of facts in the case, arrives Mt the
) conclusion that the trial was controlled,
and The verdict extorled, by public opinion,
rather than by calm, thorough, aud i'm.
partial investigation. Ali the proceedings
OF the trial, says the writer, Indicate nn
overwhelming sense Of the prisoners guilt,
which sense was increased by the weak
ness and embarrassment of the counsel for
the defence. rn
The review intimates, aud proves rro,ty
conclusyely, that the Court under appre-
hension of being charged with undue LEM
encIy, III consequence of DR.. Wcbsler's
position in society, were forced to an cpou-
tccx,reme. They seemed to think it
necessary to secure, aud that unanimously,
such n verdict as would accord with Bos-
ton public opinion. '.This, " says the re-
view, aSis tho only way in which the cx-
trcmeiy arg Hmentdtire charge Of tho Chief
Justice can be accounted for" The re-
view 1871 severe in its analysis Of the Jurv's
deliberatlons. and alleges, that with all
iselr PRAYING and tribula,on-whch has
Pat%Doi IN tie actions Of the dcvout Pu-
ritans whi!c burning witches and hanging
J tsuhkers--thcy seem merely 10 have re.
hected back tho Impressions given them bv
tho Attorney General and Grief Justice
Weqnctc a paragraph touclin. the Jury's
verdict, ~,
"It was not tilrir deliberate verde, NJ
on the law and evidence. It ouli have
been proper TO have taken Il vote by ballot
thus giving to any dissenting Juror the op-
portun,y of manites,ing his dissent without,
running Tic gauntlet between his excited
fellows But no. In the iury-ro as
well as out OF DOORS the ris .3iujor Of public
opinion was brought to bear with terrific
energy. Individual opinions and intlivilua!
doubts quailed beneath the PRESSURE
si'arllaps I've are severe. But if there is
any duty which the friends Of law owe to
the public, it is 10 vindca,e individual
right against the tyranny of the mass; and
when jury trial is TO he debascd into a
mere machine for developing, in a more
concentrated form, the malevolcn, essence
ofspublic opinion, it is our duty to protest
hSrsainst it. If it be urged that the jurv
acted conscientiously in the discharge OF
their duty, and we have no doubt that they
did,-tor the published letter which has
becn permitted to remain uncon,radictcd
proves conclusivcly that they meant TO do
right,--the matter has even wo sc aspect
ForSit would seem 10 demonstrate that a
jury takcn from tie body Of the country,
with the ordinary fr;itics and impcrfcc-
tons oil mankind, are unequal to The task
which Tins jury were called upon to per.
FORM"
After discussing the evidence at length,
and weighing all the facts carefully, the
writer OF the review says:
We feel that upon the evidence fairly
before the jury, the prisoner ought no, 10
nave been convicted Of the crime of muir
der. More than tbs we need not say
But u may not DC Improper to add, that this
Is a result which has been arrived at only
AFTER q careful examination Of The evi.
dence. our Impressions upon first hear
ing the verdict, were decidedly otherwise.
We greatly fear now, that that verdict was
thciresuit of prc-occupcd public opinion,
which was brought to bear mos, violently
upon the Court, the counsel, and The Jury,
and that while not the slightest rcproach
can be thrown upon any concerned, the
intensity Of the public excitement proven
ted fair trial"
We commend to the Boston press an
examination of the .aw Reporters article,
entire. It is nota New York pamphlet"
nor The argument OF an ambitious New
York lawyer as has been snecringly said
OF some other able reviews of the trial. 1t
is a genuine New England production
a calm and powerful voice in Boston--and
IL worthy the serious cogitation OF Chief
Justice Shaw, Attorney General Clifford,
and the jury who condemned Professor
Webster by unlitcd hands, without discus
sion. 3