The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-30

seem to have had, of the solemn responsibilities
of the Jury-box-of the sanctity of an oath-of
the guilt of Murder-and OF the binding obligation
of Law In the case Of another Juror, it is even
blasphemously intimated, that his assent to the
verdict was the result of a special revelation from
Heaven-that he was divinely inspired to acquit
SICKLEs! We read that
"when the jury retired of them withdrew into
ner and on his knees asked divine gudance-got up,
entered into conversation again retired the and
finally with his mind fully made up in favor of
acquittal.
But enough. We turn from the disgraceful
incidents of the verdict to brief consideration of
the doctrine which it inculcates, and the conse-
quences which are likely to follow from its adoption
in practice. In the special correspondence of the
New York Times, we are furnished with an expla-
nation of the principles which governed the jury IN
their finding, purporting to come from themselves.
CATER the trial." says a correspondent OF that
paper,
81 had the pleasure meeting of the gentlemen who
composed the Jury and am specially instructed by them
to state they wish it distinctly understood that they
gave their verdict principle that in the absence OF
any adequate punishment by law for adultery the man
who violates the honor and desoates the home OF ms
neighbor does SO at peril Of his life and II he falls by
the outraged husbands hands, he deserves his DOOM
they informed they agreed
mousy six days since They have made it from this hour
principle of American law.
Here, then it appears, that in acquitting
SIckLEs, the Jury do not pretend to have been
guided in their verdict by the instruction, of the
Court-by the evidence in the cause-or by the law
of the land They were engaged in settling new
'Eprincple" Their action in the case, was
not judicial, but legislative, and the ''prlnci-
ple'' which they have settled is this-that hence
forward, adultery is capital ofence-the guilt of
the offender to be ascertained, and the punishment
to beinficted by the party aggrieved How far the
principle" is to extend is not stated. Is it to be
confined to members of Congress exclusively or are
all husbands throughout the land to be invested
with this power of life and DEATH for the protection
of their honor? Is every man, who may be cursed
with prostitute for wife, to be at liberty to
shoot at sight or in his own time and at his own
place, any one who may have participated in her
folly and her sin? Is the ''principle," moreover
to be confined in its application to one sex, or does
it extend to both? Are wives to have the same
rights with their husbands, and be authorized to kill
the destroyers of their domestic peace? And, final
ly, what provision, if any, is to be made for those
who have no natural guardian TO WELD in their be-
half, the weapons of death-the widowed and the
fatherless-the exposed, and oftimes sorey tempted
daughters of Poverty and Toll? Is it only the viz.
tue of married women that is weak and requires the
protection of DerriRgers and revolvers-or are we
to have q Public Assassin, armed and sup
ported at the public expense to avenge the wrongs
of the poor and the friendless, which must other
wise go unavenged 'in the absence of any adequate
punishment by law?' These are some of the
questions which the Jury in the ScKLEs' case have
omitted to answer, if indeed, they ever stopped to
consider but which are none the less obviously
suggested by the most cursory and partial
of the detestable doctrine which they
have sought TO make IA principle of American
claw