The Evansville daily journal., 1859-04-14

should extend commSeration to the living.
That life, taken away as it was, may prove
to be your and my gain. You know not
how soon the wife or daughter of some one
of you had been, ii fact you know not but
she had been, marked by the same eyes that.
destroyed the. marriage relations of this de-
fendant.
You know not bow soon the gardens of
loveliness over which you now preside, had
that life been spared, would have been call
ed upon to supply their flower to satisfy the
Unsuitable appetite of the deceased.
An interference with the marriage rela-
tions must strike every rejecting mind as
| the greatest wrong that can be committed
on human being. 1t has been we'll said
that affiiction, shame, poverty, and captivity
are preferable, and ] do not know that can
express the sentiment more ably than IN re-
citing the lines which the great dramatist
has placed in the mouth of the Moor, on the
supposed discovery of the Inconsistency of his
Desdemona.
| = You are here to decide whether the defen-
der of the marriage-bed is q murderer
whether he is to be put on the same footing
as the first murderer, and is to be presented
in his moral and legal aspects with the same
hue of aggrayation about him.
Mr.. Graham reviewed the opening speech
OF the District Attorney, in which he (Ould}
| spoke of Sickles going out to a carnival of
blood of HIM being a walking magazine I;
and of him standing over his bleeding and
dying victim with a pistol in his hand. The
| arms that the prisoner at the bar had seen
were not so dangerous to the community, as
were the opera-glass and handkerchief that
deceased carried, for the purpose of destroy
ing the domestic peace and honor of the
prisoner. The world was benefited by the
| death of such man as Philip Barton Key.
FDuring this part of the speech, the faith
er of Mr.. Sickles wept, and many other per-
sons were moved to tears. ,, 1s I
Mr.. Graham proceeded to cite various le-
gal authorities in regard to the various de-
gress of the crime of murder and man.
slaughter. 1t was for the jury to inquire
whether the prisoner, at the time he shot
| the deceased, was moved by violent and
sudden passion which he could not control.
If this should be proved to their satisfac-
ton, he was not accountable to the law for
the deed he had done They should inquire
and decide from the testimony to be brought
before them, whether the prisoner 5 mind was
not temporarily disordered by the appalling
discovery of the obstruction of his wife's
4 virtue. The prisoner was not guilty of
crime, because when he slew the deceased
2 he was than defending his household and
vindicating an infamous wrong. In caus-
ling the death of one man he was probably
the means of preventing the death of many
who might be tempted TO commit the same
4 crime that the deceased had. If this offenSe
were TO go unpunished where society had
not protected man from injury by proper
laws, it was the duty of each member OF So
eiety TO protect himself He should protect
himself as much against an adulterer as a
barglar Human laws in all civilized coun-
tries allow a man to kill burglar whom
he may discover breaking into his house at
night The laws sanction the killing OF q
burglar, and the same authority must sane
ton the redress of f,r greater injury done
by the adIlterer.
Mr. Graham read parts of the English law
on the subject, citing the statute of Edward
the First, which hmakesadultery. a deadly sin
He also cited the laws Of Massachusetts,
Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the only
States where adultery is legally punishable
He contended that Key was a trespasser on
the home of Sickles, and that Sickles had
perfect right to punish him as any other
treSpasser. He denied that the prosecution
p should prove that there was malice in the
killing and not leave it to be implied. II
they imply, they will fail to make out their
case. The defense need not go further. II
malice is not proved, the jury could acquit
the prisoner. On the evidence thus far ad-
duced, jury OF twelve Indian savages
would Indignantly repel the idea OF con-
yiction. The prosecution must prove that
there was malice, and the jury cannot build
a verdict of guilty on the presumption Of a
thing which does not exist. 1t is tragic
thing to shed blood, but it is not always a
tragic thing to shed the blood of an adulter-
er 1t had been proved by the evidence for
the prosecution that Key had defiied the bed
of the prisoner at the bar; tue latter had
admitted that be was so wronged, and lie
had ample proof OF it.
II The defense might there rest the case, and
demand the acquittal of the prisoner, on the
ground of having proved the adulterous in
tercourse; but they would not stop here.-
They intend to present 10 the jury facts oi
adulterous proceedings of the deceased,
with all their revolving details; proving that
at the very time that Key was engaged in
. them, be was a trusted and familiar friend
of the prisoner at the bar.
Mr. Graham here took up the Bible, and
commencing at Genesis, he went through to
4 prove tue justice vi hlIiiuR hu auuiteIeE Ut
cited the case of the United States vs. jar
Doe, who was tried in this Court for killing
the seducer of his sister.
In that case the Judge ruled that the jury
must inquire into the state of the prisoner
mind at the time of the killing. He thought
that it was conclusively proved from these
and other passages that the greatest crime
known and recognized by the Bible was
!, that of adultery, and it was known that in
the co'lmon tribunals of the world, there
was no great provocation that could be offer
ed to man. 1t was folly to punish man
, for what he could not help doing, and q
man could not help inficting summary ven-
geance upon another whom be had discov-