The American. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1857, 1857-09-05

l tnllg uOSJ untaSofaDie 10 those witnesses. w
put them through course of cross-examnatior
10 might have been an omissions a casual omission
We called their attention to it. We put the que.
tion; but we could not elicit from any one Of theI
an admission that pistol was fired by any of th
opposing party, that a cudgsl was used ston
cast, or blow struck. And they sought to pre-
dnce the impression on this court and this jury
that those who were assaulted and their friends
positively submitted TO the assault without resis
tence. could not believe them, nor can this jury
believe them. do not charge them with wilfully
swearing falsely. make great allowance for Jus
ce Dom, for that special challenger and for police
| justice Goddard and would extend the mantle
OF charity over them. l. will not follow the exam
pie of my worthy friend the District Attorney and
censoriOusly impute crime to error; but still say
| cannot credit this statement, and in my Judgment
an impartial jury cannot credit 1t. There stood
column of near hundred Irishmen, outnumber-
ing the assailants; and they were not alone, they
were not unsupported; OF course not As the
contest partook of party character il necessarily
involved in its consequences individuals of that
party In whose interests those Irish were brought
10 vote is ii then to be believed that under cir
cumstances like these, in crowd of persons thus
promiscuously assembled of both parties, this as.
sault could have been made and not be resisted
that blows on one side did not produce blows on
the other? Credulity itself must reject it. The
testimony on the part of the defence comes In here
and proves what every man of rational mind would
expect to have occurred--that this rush upon the
Irish column produced fight blows were given
as well as received in point Of fact fight in which
policeman Baggott the Chief of Police, is proved,
il not to have fred the first shot, certainly TO have
fired the two that followed the first shot Blows
were dealt on both sides, missiles few both ways,
it was free fight ending it is true in the route Of
the Irish. They had not muskets with bayonets
at the point charged with ball cartridge and three
buck-shot to shoot into the unarmed crowd; and
they ran. Now, gentlemen Of the jury, that was
the head and front Of the first offending --
The District Attorney says it was riot,
say 1t was an aifray. 1t was an Irish shindy
Wherever you find the SONS Of Erin gathered to-
gether, you always find these shiniies. This was
produced, to some extent, by the conduct Of Mr..
GODDARD; occasioned by the array of that foreign
band and their position at the polls excited BY
the retort oil the lrshman, who said that he had
not his papers in his pocket, but he had a brick.
What was that but challenge to ightg WHY,
the brick in the Irishman's pocket was equivalent
to the glove OF the knight cast down to his adver-
sary-a challenge to a tilt at arms With the
Irish it was at least a challenge to shindy An
other fellow draws his knife, and some one ex-
claims, there is a knife, wade in boys-jump in,
boys; we have stood il long enough" And they
did wade in. am not here to justify or palliate
this conduct It was a violation Of law, and the
guilty parties ought to be punished for it II isa
great pity that you cannot 60 back and punish
the parties who collected those Irishmen and
brought them there under such circumstances
When you come to weigh the moral guilt which
attaches in this case, the deepest stain will be
found on them. But ! say am not the apologist
fer the assault it was wrong il was violation
Of the peace; II was contrary to law it was vio-
lent aflray, in which some were beaten and wound.
ed, and IL ended in general fight. 1t was
great outrage; agree to that am not here to
defend it; but the question is, can you punish
them for it under this indictment? l make that
question; for, no matter how wrong they may have
acted; no matter what turbulence was manifested:
what law they infracted, you can only try them
according to law-fnd them guilty according to
law--and punish them according to law and the
moment you overstep the limits Of the law, and
visit them with punishment not according to the
law, you break the law, disregard the solemn oath
under which you sit in that box, and set an exam
pie fatal to security. We want the law executed
fairly and impartally we ask no more. If these
men were proved guilty of murder, or of larceny.
or robbery, can you find them guilty under this
indictment? No. And whys Because the indict-
ment charges them with riot, aud you cannot in
quire into an offence that is not charged in the
Indictment That l have attempted already to
explain to you. Now, gentlemen can you find
dictment, but if the evidence proves that they
were guilty Of an affray, and an ARRAY be not
charged, you cannot find them guilty of that Of
fence. If, then, this violation Of the peace at the
polls was, in contemplation Of law, an affray and
not riot however guilty these parties may be-
however much they may deserve punishment
and think they do deserve punishment-you
break the law If you convict them you make JUS
tice mockery and you invade the privilege of
fb Joc vbi laxv baa - Nj,
Now, gentlemen, propose to call your attention
to the distinction between a riot and an afiray:
Offences are divided into various classes and some
times the line of demarcation is difficult to ascer-
tain. The definition is certain-but when We
come to apply the facts to the case it is often un.
certain to what class of offence the particular case
belongs Thus we have homicide divided into
felonious homicide, justifable homicide and ex-
cusable homicide. Where the excuse is, where
the justification is, and where they separate, it tx
often difficult to determine. A felonious homicide
is divided again into murder and manslaughter:
well known settled distinctions the law books give
US; but still il is sometimes most difficult thing
to determine where to draw the line and whether
particular state Of facts makes a case of murder
or reduces it to manslaughter. The leading dis.
tinction is that murder consists of homicide done
upon premedtation with malice; manslaughter is
a homicide committed without malice upon sud-
den heat. Here we have rot and an ARRAY, and
Che principle which distinguishes murder from
now points us to the distinction
between a riot and an aifray. Murder must be
upon premeditaton; manslaughter is a killing
without premeditation, from sudden heat A riot
is disturbance of the peace upon concert, upon
The premeditaton and concert,
which in case Of killing, makes murder, in case
of the disturbance Of the peace, makes a riot. An
affray is disturbance Of the peace where persons
engage in fight upon a sudden occasion with
out premeditation. To make riot, parties must
assemble together unlawfully. II must be an un-
lawful assembly. They must assemble unlawfnlly
and act upon premeditaton. An affray is where
the parties assembled, whether lawfully or unlaw-
fllIy, make a combat out Of some sudden provo
cation ...s. .. ..-'..
That is the difference defined by law, be-
tween n riot and an ARRAY That | NAV not be