The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1854-06-05
s. That Pardon ''..aFOr the Last Time.

we publish DelOW COMMUNICATION IToIh
Messrs. RossER & OLDs, attorneys for Louis
Monroe, ON the trial which resulted in his con-
victiOn of ian assault, with intent to kill."-
The communication is so explicit in ITSELF and
so complete a justification of the officials,
whose motives have been impugned, and whose
actions have been denounced, that it needs no
preface from u.s. With its publication, we
trust that, in the language of the writer's, we
are done with it, now and forever
Mr.. EpIruR we have not heretofore pub
lcly noticed the attacks of the Wing press of
this city upon two of the Democratic officers
of the Territory, in connection with theparlon
of Monroe, because we thought that to do so
would be to magnify into Importance charges,
which in themselves were simply absurd. We
believed that the idea that the Governor and one
of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the
Territory would cOnspire with the Secretary of
the Territory, to defeat the ends of justice, for
the purpose of releasing from confinement ne
gro, without vote or influence, and so poor that
we never had even the slightest expectation of
q fee for our cxertiOns in his behalf-wc say it
was our belief, that such an idea was too rid-
culOus to be for moment entertained by any
person of common sense. Nor do we propose
now to discuss the guilt or innocence of Mon
roc-that has been done at the proper time
and place nor to defend the course pursued
in the management of the casc-it was what
seemed to us right and proper, and an easy
conscience is sufficient shield against the at
tacks of political opponents and interested par
ties. We conceive it to be due to ourselves,
however, that we should, once for all, correct
the erroneous impressions which the statement
drawn up by the District Attorney and pub
lishcd in the Times of the LIST instant, is calcu-
lated to produce in this community. 1t will
be borne in mind, in order to perceive the i'm
portant bearing of the omissions i'm that state
mcnt, that Monroe relied for his defence upon
the fact that the act charged was committed
in hot blood, resulting from great provocation
Immediately prcccding-a good legal defence
to the indictment, as the Court charged upon
the trial. and as every lawyer knows. Wcnow
proceed to notice the omissions referred to.
The District Attorney speaks of the draw
ing of pistol by Monroe, as if that fact had
been enthusiastically the evidence, but omits to
insert that it was positively testified to by but
one witness and that one of the witnesses for
the prosecution, white waiter ut the Amcri-
can House, and two of the witnesses for the
defence, one of whom was Runncls, the part
ncr of Dixon, and whose veracity no man will
question: testified that their position was such
that no pistol could have been drawn by Mon
roc in the house without being seen by them,
and that no pistol was drawn by him while in
side the room. The white boy referred to,
when rc-cxamined by the prosecution for fear
that he had not properly understood the ques-
ton put to him by the defendants attorneys,
distinctly reiterated the statement, and in SO
many words, that he didn't draw any pistol
in the house." Which is more worthy of Gre
dence, their own black witness, or their own
white witness? The District Attorney fur
thor omits to state that all the witnesses tcsti-
,,,. "a that Monroe never reused to leave the
house, nor made any rr,,;s.t.ancc t? Dixon, Va:
speaks ofhis planting himself at the only ell
trance" &C., instead, as Dixon himself testifi-
ed, of his standing in the door irresolute, as if
undetermined whether to 60 or not. He pre-
viously omits to state that Monroe was en-
ployed in the house by Runnells, Dixon part
ner, and that every time that he was ordered
to 60 he said he would do so, but wanted first
to explain to Dixon that he was not in the
wrong, which explanation Dixon refused to
hear. All these facts were established on the
trial without contradiction. The statement
also contains the following paragraphs:
Now what was the defence offered to this direct
and positive proof of guilt? Why, in the first place
that the defendant drunk-evidence Of which
was very properly ruled by the court, though not
excluded in the first instance; that the defendant
had the benefit Of it before the jury.
"SecondIy, that DIXON had his hands IN and
pushed the defendant while coming up stairs from
the cellar. And thirdly, that DIXON pushed the de.
fendant out OF the door against a tree
The above facts offered in defence, were attemp-
ted to he established by youmgster of color. who
when he came upon the stand, behaved in 50 tritins
manner while tesiiiyng, as to impress everybody
p,esent with disbelief Of every part OF his evidence
This witness further, and even stated that DIX
ON drew and snapped pistol twice at the defendant
before the defendant shot"
'.As to the first, the statement made by the de-
PENDANTS witness have shown is cont adic,ory,
tor he admitted that he knew very little, if anything
dDout II; and further, two witnesses for the prosecu
uon' whose testimony unquesfioned, expressly
ana positively contradicted the statement"
NOW this statement is erroneous in several
particulars In the first place, evidence of
drunkenness was excluded from the first, and
we were precluded from relying upon it in the
defence althO,,vh we bol;oroI 4, 20,