The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-06-10
THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 9, 1854.
The Monroe Affair Asains

! t The Monroe Affair Again.
We give place to the following communica-
ton from the jurors on the trial Of Monroe for
the assault on Dixon, not only because any
respectable body of men have right to express
their opinions in this manner on any topic, but
as an act of simple justice to the individuals
themselves whose action as jurors have been
freely commented upon during the progress OF
the controversy arising from the pardon Of
Monroe. Upon the statement of the jury we
have no remarks to make. We first had the
pardon Of the Executive, then the letter of
Judge Shcrburne in relation to the evidence
adduced upon the trial then the statement Of
Messrs. Cooley and Becker, attorneys for the
prosecution, and Mcssrs. Rosser d. Olds, counsel
for the prisoner. Now we have the statement
OF the jury, and the public can form an opinion
in regard ID this matter.
To the Citizens of Ramsey County:
FELLOW CrrIzENs-We are unwillingly drag
ged, as it were. before you, to give some OK
PLANTATION, as to the reasons whereby our YER
dict was rendered in the case of Louis Monroe,
charged, at the last sitting Of the Court for the
md Judicial District with shooting at Moses
Dixon with intent to kill him. It is due YOU,
and every member of this community, that we
should step forward and vindicate the sacred
institution of Trial by Jury, from such unwar-
rantable innovations, as lately have been COM
mitted, by the pardon granted by the Ecxecu-
tive to said Monroe. We, in the first place. be-
lieve we understand the English language.
IDLY, we are we'll acquainted with the serious
responsibilities and duties of Jurymcn. Third
ly, we heard all the evidence in the case pro
and con 4; gave it our utmost consideration, We
also heard the charge Of the learned Judge and
gave that every respectful attention consonant
with our duties as Jurymen. But when the
case was closed, and the Jury retired to their
room, they alone were the judges of the guilt or
innocence of the defendant, and here they reit-
crate their verdict from the facts proved before
the court and Jury, and not contradictcd one
iota by the defence. The defendant was guilty
of shooting with intent to kill. The facts are
as fresh in our memory as if it were but yes
tcrlay. The witnesses proved that the defend
''h' '" -" causing d great uiSturpaHCe Ill inc
house. The man Dixon, the proprietor, dcsir-
cd him to leave and Monroe procrastinatng
his stay, using proiane language, and exclam-
ing, "lct any man lay his hand on me and he
will be sorry for it, Dixon after waiting on
customer. again went towards defendant and
desired him to leave, the defendant stood in the
doorway, and Dixon pushed him out, using no
more force than was necessary, although an at
tempt was made on the part of the defence to
show that he had fallen, from the force of the
pushing, against the tree opposite the house
but the Jury disbelieved the witness who testi
fed to that effect. for be most certainly, on his
cross-eNamination by the Hon. G.. l.. Becker
perjurcd himself so much so that the learned
counsel abruptly stopped his cross examination
] prefcrring to lose the benefit of whatever I'M
preston he could make on the Jury rather than
allow the witness TO subject himselfto the pains
and penalties Of perjury. The whole evidence
then given. proved that tle defendant after be-
ing pushed from the door, Immediately turned
round and fired pistol. the ball striking the
hand Of Dixon, his hand being at that time held
cd of and passed through the ticshy part of his
arm, and lodged in the wall or ceiling of the
room. Did he intend to kill him or not ? The
Jury believed he did. Now look a little fur
thcr. What did defendant do afterwards. Did
he run away from the town? Did he express
sorrow for committing the offence or make a.
mcnds in any way that man would naturally
make after the commission of crime pcrpetrated
under the excitement of passion? No. The fc
male witness stated, and also one male witness
land be it remembered the whole of the wit
ncsses were of his own race, and would no
doubt be naturally biassed in his favor)-they
stated in Il conversation with him the same
night as follows: "Iou have badly hurt Dixon,
but he is not dead Monroe's answer was "if
1 did not meant to kW him; Tanned right at
his heart. and If he is not dead. ,cW Kill him
in the morning." Does this show sorrow or
penitcnce: Does it not show cold bloodcd de-
termination to have murdered Dixon. We be-
lievc he intended to murder him: and with all
due respect to Judge Shcrburnc, we say it was
our duty, alone, to bring in verdict accord
ing to the evidence as proved on the trial. and
his honor will probably remember his charge:
said his honor, 'if you believe the evidence
shows that Dixon used more force than neces-
sary to eject Monroe, you must find a verdict of
guilty of assault only, but if you believe Dixon
used no more force than necessary, to turn de-
PENDANT out of his house, (Which he had per-
feet right to do,) you will find defendant gull
fx,o 10 Al.
charge of the Judge; and yet his honor signs
paper, some weeks after the verdict is render
ed, stating that he did not think the evidence
adduced at the trial, was sufficient to warrant
the Jury in bringing in such verdict as they
did. Now the question is, fellow-citizens, who
were the Judges of the evidence, given in plain,
unmistakable language? The Judge, or the Ju-
ry: We believe the Jury were, and unhesitat-
ingly say, the pardon of Louis Monroe, is di-