New-York daily tribune., 1856-07-30

Ccnsl0erdDle etVer1V OF crlQcisu nos pccn VA
p, nded upon Judge Crawford for the trifing char
acter of the pull ishment which he sees fit to ibct
upon Bully Brooks for his lurking, murderous as
sault upon Senator Sumner. Considering, how
ever, the views Of the law entertained by Judge
Crawford, as set forth in bis instructions to the
jury in Herbert's case, he seems to have stretched
q point or two-ptrbaps out Of respect to the dig
nifty Of the Senate-p fniDg Brooks at ALL
Under the line Of HeIberts case. Brooks be-
You'd all question, ought to have been regarded as
acting in self-de'ense, and should have been dis
misstd scot-fIee, in company with his friend Her
bert The law Of self Defense as laid dowa In
that case, ia this Any person being in the pres
eDce of another from whom be anticipates some
trest bcdily harm-no matter how that apprehen-
sion may have arisen though an assault con-
mited by hiDsel' may be tie occasion OF it, and no
matter neither it be well founded or n0t-such terri
fed person, acting under such apprehension is per.
fectly usii ID in killing the party whom he fears
aDo such killing will not be murder, nor even man.
slaueht4r r, but homicide in self defense.
81 ch was the ruling under which Herbert was
Acquired, and certainly under this ruling Brooks
should have been scquitted too. 1t is perfectly
evictnt, both from his own statement aud from Ed
uLndsons, that Brooks stood 10 BODILY terror Of
Summers supposed superior personal strength, ana
tba, he was frghteEed, if not out Of his wits, yet
out Of every manly IDEA Of fair play, by an ina
sinary pistol which Mr.. Sumner was supposed to
carry in his pocket Under the effect of these two
terrcrs the whole assault was planned and perpe-
trated In providing bims. If with stout cudgel
large enough to fell and stun at the first blows in
str king that blow under circumstances almo GER
tain to render 1t effective, while Mr.. Sumner was
IN sir,irg posture unable to ward it of, and
Brooks standing over him 20 NJ 20 strike to most
advantage; in confirming to repeat the blows 90
lorg ss his bleeding victim made any
attempt to rise or showed any s'ens OF
Eft-n tie whole of this proceeding from first to
last; in The choice, by EduundsCns advice OF the
Separe Chamber as the scene Of the assault to
which be might thus come fierk and vigorous with
out putting himself out of brt ath by ranniog up
the capitol steps; in the deliberate choce sc-
coI6ing to bis own statement, Of the particular
weapon which he used; from first TO last through
out the whole Transaction, Brooks clearly acted
under the influence of terror and in the belief, in
the words Of Judge Crawford that he was in " ion.
" mil ert daI ger Of great bodily harm" from Mr..
Summers supposed superior personal strength and
The imaginary pistol with which he was supposed
to be armed. Nor does it make any difference,
according to the same eminent jurist, that these
ttrrors were wholly imaginary, the mere coiaage
Of the brain of one coward ,akiog counsel with
another coward. The only essential point is fright
and terror; and that both Brooks and Edmundson
we've thoroughly frightened, and that their whole
method Of opposition was based on that fright Is
clear from the tes,imony of both OF them
II the fist ow struck by Brooks had failed to
stun Mr.. Sumner, or if, though stunned, he had
succeec,d in biz convulsive struggle in clssping
Brookss cane, so as to put tina! valorOus champion
in fear of having it wrested from him aad used
over his own head-in that case, according to
Judge Crawford's law, Brooks would have been
perfectly justified in shooting Mr.. Sumner dead.
So, il tie beating had no; not been interup ed ali
Bra, ks had gone On till he bsd actually killed Mr.
Sumner, Judge Crawford would undoubtedly have
held it iustifsble homicide in self defense, on tn
grouLd that Brooks had continued bic blows In the
fear that if he left of Mr.. Sumner might suddenly
spring from the ground and have put him in dan.
ger cf great bodily harm. But if for Brooks TO
have killed Mr.. Sumner would have been justif-
able homicide, We do not exactly perceive the
justice OF the sense Of fping him three hundred
d.srs because be did not kill hun, uuless, indeed,
was intended ss fIieIdly hint On the part of
be Judge how TO act next time.