The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-25
BALTIMORE.
MONDAY, APRIL Is, 1859.

having introduced rebutting testimony in regard
TO the demonstrations of excitement alleged to
have been made by the prisoner, about the time of
the homicide and in reference to his state of mind
upon the day or two Immediately preceding that
catastrophe, the Prosecution, on Friday, submitted
privately 10 the Judge without public discussion,
and of course with the consent and participation of
the Prisoners counsel, the question of the admiss
bility of certain evidence, which, if admissible the
Prosecution proposed to offer. Although the pre-
else details of that evidence have not yet been
officially disclosed, its general character is perfect
ly well known, and much of it had in fact been
announced, in advance, by the press. 1t had
reference, chiefly, to the personal habits and
duct of SIcKLEs, and was designed to establish, by
proof of recent, continual and gross infdelity and
libertinism upon his part, his own habitual and
utter disregard of his marital obligations.
portion of the evidence, tending to the establish
ment of the conclusion just stated, was from Balti-
more and its nature and the grossness gifts develop
ments are pretty generally known among our citi
Zens- His Honor, Judge CRAWFORD, after private
conversation with the respective counsel, and upon
reference to the authorities privately submitted
TO him, pronounced the evidence to be i'll
admissible, and the case of the UNITED STATES
was, with trifling reservation announced to have
been closed. The prayers, upon both sides, were
then presented to the Court, and were under dis
cussion at the adjournment. The case, it is under
stood, will be submitted 10 the Jury, without
argument after Judge CRAWFORD shall have given
his instructions on the law.
The position of the controversy, as we have de-
scrbed it. strikes US, confess, singular. After
proof of the homicide, in the opening case of the
Prosecution, an elaborate and most extraordinary
argument was made, by Mr.. GRAHAM for the
prisoner Wesay-an argument-for the Court per-
mitted the learned gentleman not only to announce
what the Defence expected to prove, but to argue
the whole of the proposed evidence-possible and
impossible admissible and inadmissbe-n adj
vance, if it had all been regularly substantially
and legally proven. Nor did the matter stop there.
Mr.. GRAHAM was allowed to state to the jury, as
the law of the case what could not be the law of
any Christian community, where there are any
laws at all. He was permitted to quote to Them
every thing within the range of his memory and
Imagination from Levitcus to Othello, in order
to establish the proposition, that it is not only
religious priviege-part of the reserved and recog
nized rights of every individual and a deeply
cherished and invaluable imminent of private
chastity and public morals. If it had been intend
ed, by the Court at any time, to shut the door
against the introduction of the testimony which
has occupied so much of the scandalous proceed
ings in the case-and to set its face against the
lawless and abominable doctrines which that testi-
mony was designed to enforce-then was the time.
Mr.. GRAHAM should have been told, at once, that
he could not be permitted to state as law, what
was not law, or to argue as facts, what had not
been proven, and would not be legal proof if
offered. No such course was pursued. Mr.. GRA-
HAM had the whole field to himself and went over
1t, certainly with the widest and widest range
After that-t was mere tri1ing, to cavil about the
admssibiIity of one item or another among the
mulutudinous details which Mr. GRAHAM had 90
prodigally promised. The effort of the Prosecu-
ton to stay the torrent was vain, and altbouoh
made under an obvious sense of right and duty
and with great force of argument and authority
was IN the main, unsuccessful. In one point in
which it prevailed, we think its success was nm
fortunate. We allude to the exclusion Of the
written confession of Mrs. SIcKLEs. which was
offered by the Defence and rejected by the Court
Upon that document, in itself alone, we think the
prosecution might have been willing to rest. Dis
gushing as it was, in all particulars we allowed
that paper place in our report of the case, ex
pressy because we regarded it as throwing 81 more
perfect light, than all the rest of the evidence
together, upon the motives, feelings, principles
and character of the two living parties to the
catastrophe, and consequently on the entire merits
of the defence. We looked upon it as conclusivey
determining, under the hands and by the involun-
tary testimony of those parties themselves the two
controlling questions raised by the counsel for
the prisoner-whether the purity Of the wife
was such as to deserve vindicaton by blood
and whether the hands of the husband were
worthy to WELD against the adulterer the
vengeance Of God. Such document, concocted
by wife and husband, under the circumstances
and in the manner disclosed-couched in the min
gled language of prurient indecency and profess
sional contrivance-produced on the trial. and
given to the press for publication-we regarded as
decisive upon those points, in the eyes of every
man of honor or common decency. Its exclusion
from the proof we could not understand. for if
seemed TO strike out the only light which flashed
through all the secret and filthy places and mys
tsries of the tragedy. Upon that confession we are
sure that the final conclusions of nine out of ten
among impartial people throughout the country
will absolutely turn, and it seems strange that
the Jury alone should have been prevented from
having access to it as evidence.
But the exclusion of the proof offered on Friday
and its submission to the Court out of the HEARING
OF the Jury, appear to US even stranger than the
rejection of Mrs. Sckles' confession. The defenc.
rested, in the main, upon two grounds; first, that
the Prisoner was maddened-made actually insane
by the discovery of his wfe's nfdelity, and COM
mtted the homicide while the madness was upon
him; secondly, that if not actually insane, he was
wound TO pitch of fury, by the circumstances,
and slew the transgressor in transport of natural
and uncomfortable rage. If the first defence-in-
sanity-be proven, 10 the satisfaction of the jury.
the Prisoner must of course, be acquitted If the
jury find the second-uncontroulable and natural
fury-the verdict must be one of three things
viz: mGrder-if the Prosecution be right in its
law, acquittal, if the doctrines of the defence be
admitted; manslaughter, if the Court adopt mid
die course. From whatsoever of these various
points of view the defence may be contemplated, it
is perfectly obvious, that the state of the Prisoners
mind and feelings, at the time of the homicide, is
the precise and especial matter to be determined
the one vital question, in fact, which is the key to
his innocence or the grade of his guilt. How that
state of mind and feelings can be genuinely ascer-
the sincerity or the hypocrisy of the
ms al sc
proven, can be arrived at-hetter, than by
the common and habitual character
and developments of his mind and feel
ings, on the very subject in controversy
passes our comprehension. If the question were,
whether the prisoner was alarmed-would not
proof of his being coward or man of courage,
be most important in its determination? If the
defence were that he had heard an insult and had
resented it, would not proof that he was deaf be
pertinent to the issue? Why then-when the de-
fence is that he was stung to madness'or to anger
irresistible, by the belief that his bed had been de-
fields it not relevant, to show that he himself
defled it? When it is contended that
his sensbity was so exquisite, as to make homi-
eide its only consolation-why is it not competent
to shew that he habitually blunted his sensbty,
by indulgence such as must, of necessity, have OBJ
liberated it2 When man sets himself up as the
of conjugal purity, and justifes murder