New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-23
THE sICKLRs CASE.

The closing proceedings yesterday IN TIA Sckles
case were OF 8 peculiar character, and, accord
ing to the Interpretation put upon them by the
reporters, involved singular departure from the
ordinary course of our jud,isl procedure. IL Is
represented that having closed the rebuttng te,ti-
mony on the question of Mr. Sickess insanity, the
prosecution desired 10 offer evidence upon some
other point This point they privately stated TO
the prisoners counsel. The question Of the ad-
instability Of this evidence appears to have been
argued to the Judge By counsel on both sides 10 3
sub rosa manner; in open Court to b. sure, but in
low tore of sOice-the counsel gathering closely
about the bench, and submitting authorities which
the Judge spent some time in examining, when he
finally delivered his opinion excluding the evidence,
but lot stating What it was.
The reporters suggest that the question raised
wss whether the prosecution had right 70 put IN
evidence as to 1.-the antecedents of Mr.. Sickles.
In the course Of tie discussions on the insanity
question, and what was evidence to prove II, Dir.
Carlisle hid suggested that there were at least
two classes Of persons, to Wit, humble Christians
and confirmed sduierers, little likely to have been
driven TO insanity by discovery Like tast made BY
Mr. SckleS. Taking into account the evidence
Just before put in, that while prosecuting bis
Investigations, and even, it would seen, after
suspicion had in his own mind tarkened
into reality, Mr.. Sekles still remained in
the House Of Representatives. and continued to
give his active attention TO question in which our
New.York Representatives would naturally feel
q deep iDterest-th,t of Navy Yard retrenchment-
Mr.. Carlisle might have added third class, n,ms-
ly, patriots thoroughly devoted to the interests OF
their country. If this was the point raised, or
whsteyer that pont might have been, we are en-
trely at loss to understand why there should
have been go much secrecy about the matter, or
why tk public and the profession should have been
deprived of the benefit which in the way Of prece-
dent and adjudication might have accrued from
Judge Crawforo's decision. The point, it seems
to us, might easily have been stated in such gen
eral terms as to have saved in greA! measure Mr..
Sickleo's sensbilities.
The next step in the progres, of the trial after
the eydenceis ali in, is q peculiarly in the con-
duct of criminal trials 10 the District Of Columbia
derived from the old Maryland customs. First, the
prosecution and then the defense, ofer one BY
one, certain written instructions upon points OF
law, which they pray the Court u give to the
Jury. The Judge, after hearing argument, either
refuses this prayer or grants it, either IN the terms
proposed or with such notifications as he
may think necessary, and the Instructions
thus given must be taken to be the law
of the case, and must be treated as
such in the arguments of counsel which follow.
Ia that argument the prosecution has the right of
both opening aud closing and the case then goes to
the Jury without any charge from the Judge.
Even if the argumen. BY counsel should be dis
penssd with, ii seems hardly possible that the ease
should get to the Jury to day, unless indeed, the
counsel in arguing the points Of law should rather
initiate the brevty of their private discussion upon
the last point raised than the proli1ity by which
maty of their previous arguments have been dis
FIN ouisbe1