The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1859-05-03


Murder mo Crime.
The Journal thinks sthere is no material
difference in the seyes Of the law between
killing man and numbering him." Itwould
seem that the slightest possible modicum Of
common sense requisite to constitute ration
ality would be quite sufficient to enable one
to perceive very material difference in the
"eyss Of tho law" between killing and muir
dsring.
Killing a man is sometimes accidental,
sometimes excusable, sometimes justifable
and sometimes in the excitement of sudden
passion-killing IL manslaughter in the "eyes
OF the law" but in none of these cases is the
act Of killing punishable with death. Muir.
der, however, is distinct, ell-de6nsd crime
in the "eyes Of the law" the penalty for
which in most civilized communities is death.
Now what we assert 10 that Sickles COM
mitsed murder Sin the eyes Of the law and
that the jury knew and believed that he was
legally guilty of murder, and yet, that they
might not condemn him to the penalty Of his
crime, found him "nos guilty"
A correspondent of the New York Times,
friendly to Sickles and fully approving the
verdict rendered by the jury, says:
sAfter the trial / had the pleasure Of meet
ing ten OF the gentlemen who composed the
jury, and am specially instructed by them
to state, and they wish it distinctly under
stood, that they gave their verdict on the
principle that, In the absence OF any adequate
punishment by law for adultery, the man whe
violates the honor and desolates the home Of
his neighbor, does 90 at the peril Of his life
and If he falls by the outraged husband
hands, he deserves bis doom. This princi
pie, they informed me, they agreed upol
unanimously six days since. They have mad,
1t from this hour a prinbiple Of American
law"
There it Is, new principle Of law estab
ished by jury in contravention Of the Law
OF the land. Before the public endorse thi
new principle it might be we'll to conside
the general scope and logical consequence
OF the position. II man may take ven
geance on his wife's paramour and delibcr
ately sacrifice his life to appease his outraged
feelings or plaster his wounded honor, ma,
not wife likewise with equal show of fair
ness and OF justice poison her adulterou
husband or the frail creature who has en-
tced him from her marriage bed? And
moreover, il We are to resort to the code o
barbarism and redress our own wrongs in tn
case OF adultery, Why not carry out the prin
cple and take the law into our own hands OF
all occasions where great outrages are com
mitted on our honor, our rights, or our feel
ings9 1t becomes those who contend tha
killing is no murder" under such circum
stances, to be consistent, to admit the sam
plea On behalf Of the injured wife, and Il
allow all persons to redress their own grea
wrongs With prompt and bloody hands. TIL
iogicei solution of the difficulty and the prac
tical application Of the principle is the resto
ration OF that condition Of society in whcl
every man does what seems good in his ow,
eyes and "might makes right.o
We don't think marriage bed that need
such protection "werth the powder,n an
feel perfectly willing to stand upon tbs
opinion rather .haI 1iivs Our sanction TO I'M
new "principle Of American law" establishe
by the jury for the protection Of one who ha
been habitually guilty Of the crime for whic
his victim suffered death at his hands. Sicl
les was notorious adulterer, and had viii
inclined to follow his example; Key, not b.
ing as virsuous as Joseph, is allured TO 81
BY this modern Potiphar's wife, and her hu,
band deliberately shoots him. II Sickle
were not member Of Congress the publ
could find great similarity in his case to til,
Of the keeper, or the bully Of baxdy hou,
shooting . man for sleeping with s.his ",
man. ia the establishment.