The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-04-21

were ringing in the air, and, il possible,
more certainly that be must have known it
when be stood bravely over his victim, 70
volver in hand, seeking to scatter the brains
Of one who had already been MORALLY
wounded in three vital points, and whose
eyes were already being covered with the
films Of death. say this not for the purpose
Of inflaming your minds against the prisoner
at the bar, but as an illustration Of the
principle Of the common law, that q homi.
eide with deadly weapon, perpetrated bya
party who has all the advantages upon bis
side, under circumstances indicating cruelty
and vindictveness, is murder, no matter
what may have been the antecedent provo.
cations in the case.
Mr.. O., then quoted from " Wharton on
Homicide" where distinguished judge had
ruled that if the prisoner intended, in Q
contest with an unarmed man, to avail him.
self Of a deadly weapon, it would amOnnt
to murder but if he used it in the heat Of
passion in consequence OF an attack made
upon him, it would be manslaughter. II be
used it in defense Of bis life he must satisfy
the Jury that the defence was necessary
that he did all he could to avoid il, and it
was necessary in order TO protect his own
life, or to protect himself from such serious
bodily harm as TO cause an apprehension
that his life was in immediate danger. The
evidence 10 this case would show that no
matter how revengeful might be the feelings
Of the prisoner at the bar towards the de-
ceased at the time Of meeting, yet sufficient
time elapsed from that moment to the close
q ba atas Dba 70 no all bat
passion might have inhamed him to have
subsidized aud not only was there sufficient
time, but all the other circumstances OF the
case would seem to have conspired to such
result. He know not how such bloody
purpose could have been maintained during
such length OF time, and under such ap-
pealBg circumstances, except it was sus
tanned by remorseless revenge.
At least four or five shots were fired or
attempted to be fired intervals of time,
greater or less, interviewed between these
shots. Earnest, perhaps frantic entresties-
such as man would make for his life-such
perhaps as desire for an opportunity for
self vindcatiOn-such, perhaps, as Q rec0l-
lection OF the little ones he bad left cluster
ing around bis own hearthstone, might have
brought to bis lips-flled up q portion of
these intervals. The first shot that in all
probability took effect upon the person Of
the deceased, wounded him severely in the
groin From that time, at least until he
tell upon the pavement, be was in supplicat-
ing entreaty; yet the prisoner at the bar did
not desist from his bloody intent to kill him
until he stood over the PROSTATE, dying form
Of the deceased. Nay, more the evidence
would show that at the time be was at
tempting TO add mutilation to murder, be
was arrested by the parties whose feet sub
sequently bore his victim from the spot in
which he fell.
Mr.. Ould proceeded TO state the legal de.
fnitiOn Of murder, as distinguished from
manslaughter, and read several extracts
from Wharton, in support Of his view. Muir
der had been defined, land the definition had
been accepted by almost all the civilized
worldly "a the unlawful killing Of human
being with malice aforethought. Among
the extracts read was one to the effect that
the killing Of an adslterer 10 the first trans
port OF passion. would be maDslaughter; but
the killing him deliberately and upon re.
venge, would be murder.
1t WAS natural that the jury should de-
sire to exercise mercy towards the prisoner,
and towards every criminal but higher
duty rested upon them, which was to exer-
else mercy towards society. II was no real
mercy to turn murderer loose upon the
community, with his hands reekng with the
blood Of q human being. That was an act
OF cruelty rather than mercy. These prin-
c,rla NIB, oh ha k.I ID
nently wise and just that in no civilized code
had there ever been any essential departure
from them.
Innovation, even in ITS widest moments,
had never suggested the propriety Of allow
ing revenge as justification or even q pal.
liation Of the crime Of murder Human so
ciety could exist upon no such basis; civil
zaton itself would become an impossibity.
The law has a most sacred regard TOR human
life-so sacred that even the rankcst crimi.
nal who has assumed to himself the func
lions of Judge. jury and executiouer, ia him.
self given by the law the privilege Of fair
and impartial trial It gives here to-day,
TO Daniel +. Sickles, the prisoner at the bar,
not only what he denied to his victim-an
impartial Judge and an upright iury--but
even until he is proved guilty. clothes him
in the spotess robes Of innocence. How
long the presumption Of innocence in hi.
favor may be sustained by the facts in the
case a. they may be given in the case was
for the jury TO determine. How soon that
presumption might be supplar,ed by
another, terrible to Tire prisoner, and which
the law authorizes and commands US to
draw-ihe presumption Of murder-was for
them TO Judge.
Whether, in addition to this second pre-
sumption, the proofs in the case would show
further an express malice 90 the part Of the
prisoner at the bar towards the deceased,
was for the jury to decide. They sit in
their place under the law Of the lard and no
prince or po,entate ever exercised q higher
function than that which they are called on
to perform. Ii is as solemn as death-it is
-