The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1854-06-05

believe, that it was proper as showing the in
tention with which the act was committed
Secondly, the witness referred to as testify
ing that Dixon pushed the defendant up stairs
did not testify to that fact at all. The first
witness that testified to it was Story, one of
the witnesses for the prosecution and the
next was Runnells, the only two persons who
were present at that part of the fracas beside
Dixon and Monroe. Thirdly, the statement
was not contradcted by two witnesses, but
only by Dixon himself Fourthly, all the wit
nesses testified that Dixon showed Monroe vio-
lently out of the door except Dixon himself,
and Boudon, the witness who testified to the
drawing of pistol by Monroe.
twill be seen, then, that while the inference
conveyed by the statement above quoted is,
that the defence relied upon the testimony of
but one witness, and that one not worthy OF
credencc, the truth is, that all the important
facts upon which the defence was based were
proved by the witnesses for the prosecution
We rely for our statement of the testimony
upon notes taken at the time of the trial, and
we are confident that if the District Attorney
will refer to his own notes taken at the same
time, he will find that he has been mistaken in
his recollection of the evidence.
The District Attorney is again mistaken
when he says the pardon was promised be-
fore the sentence was pronounced" 1t may
not be improper, in justice to others who might
be injured by such remarks, for rs here to
make brief statement of the proceedings in
the cause after the verdict. Being convinced
as was nearly every lawyer who was present
at the trial, that the verdict was wrong, we
gave notice of a motion for q new trial but
upon consultation with the prisoner he stated
his inability to give bail and that he would
rather go to the penitcntiary than lay in Jail
until the next term of Court-a preference
that will not be at all surprising to any per.
son who has ever seen the filthy, lousy, six by
six cell in which he was confined. We did
not, therefore, make the motion, but filed a
Bill of Exceptions, as we believed, on good
grounds. We intended, of course, to apply for
a pardon, as our last resource, and if we failed
to procure it, before the last day of the term, to
allow the prisoner to be sentenced nOtwth-
standing the Exceptions. This course we con-
ceived ourselves, as the attorneys for the prs-
oner, perfectly justified in pursuing, and there
fore did it, without any collision or consulta-
ton with any person whatever. AS the day
fixed for the adjournment of the Court sine die
approached, we withdrew our Bill of Excep-
tons, US we had a right do. There was moth.
ing left, ofcourse, but for the Court to sentence
the prisoner in due course of law.
Before the day to which the Court had been
adjourned arrived, the Governor returned. We
then, believing that the laws of this Territory
permitted the pardon of u convict who had not
been sentenced, presented our papers and pc
tition for II pardon. These the Governor re-
fused to consider, giving as his reason therefor,
that he would not cstablisha bad precedent by
pardOning criminal before he was sentenced
and so far from promising pardon he distinct
ly requested us not to infer from what he had
said that he would pardon the prisoner after
he was sentenced but he would then take it
into consideration. We pressed the matter no
further. When the Court met previous to a
final adjournment, there being nothing to stay
the sentence it was of course pronounced. The
District Attorney calls it mere form. 1t
wos form that inevitably followed his pre-
vsous proceedings in procuring the conviction
of the prisoner. After the sentence we again
urged for pardon, and the Governor granted
it, as we think, properly. To attribute to him
any corrupt motive in the act, is, under the
circumstances, as We have said before, simply
absurd. Having said thus much to correct
any error into which the community may have
been led in regard to the matter, we arc done
with it now and forever.
ROSSER & OLDS.
Personal Intelligence.