The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-19
BALTIMORE.
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1859.

Having already furnished our readers with
statement of the reasons which, in our opinion,
render it expedient that the facts in the case of
HENRY GAMBRILL, executed on Friday week, for
the murder of Policeman BENTON, should be re-
viewed by the Press, we deem it unnecessary to
offer to the public any further apology for doing
what we then promised. Our object, as we have
said, is simply to vindicate if possible this COM
munity from the suspicion even of having hung
an innocent man, and our excuse for deferring I'M
til the present moment, the fulfment of our prev-
ously expressed intentions in this respect has been
our unwillingness to recur to the subject at all
until all popular excitement in relation thereto
should have fully subsidized, and men be pre-
pared to consider the question calmly and temper
aely, and with exclusive reference to the facts of
the case as disclosed by the evidence. That doubts
should exist in the minds of any one, to the fact
of GAMBRLL's guilt and the justice of his punish
ment would of itself be sufficiently painful; while
the probable effect which the prevalence or con-
hrmation of such doubts would have upon the ac-
ton of future Juries in other capital cases. is fearful
to contemplate. Fort may be safely promised
if the Jury in GAMBRLL's case were mistaken
in their verdict, and the witnesses for the State
were mistaken in their facts then no
Jury ever can be safe in rendering Verdict of
Guilty, and no amount of testimony can be con-
sidered as conclusive Of any given state of facts.
There was in the first place, the testimony of an
eyewitness to the fact of the murder, and the
identity of the murderer. We mean that of
ROBERT M. RIGDoN, who swore positively and
tIatb o n fro Sat CHI
RIGDoN had every opportunity of knowing the
truth of that which he testified The muir
dered man fell by his side. The murderer could
not have been more than a few PAGES from
him; for the face and clothing of his victim were
burnt and blackened by the discharge of his pistol
The moon was full, and near the zenith
in an unclouded sky. The face and person of the
murderer were perfectly well-known to RIGDoN, who
was in the habit of meeting him daily, and who
had both seen and recognized him, and noted his
dress, but few minutes before. The manner in
which RIGDoN gave his testimony upon the stand,
and the circumstances under which he gave it,
attest him man of singular GOODNESS and cearness
of head, and perfect self-possesSion; while his
sudden and bloody death, the apprehension of
which never caused him to qualify with a single
expression of doubt or uncertainty, the distinct
ness of his recollection, nor betrayed him
into the smallest inconsistency in any of his state
ments, may be accepted as the crown and seal of
his integrity. Independently, therefore, of any
other and all other evidence in the cause the testi
mony of ROBERT NJ. RIGDoN must be admitted to be
as absolutely conclusive of the fact of GAMBRILLs
guilt as that of any single witness possibly could
be. But, his testimony does not stand alone.
In confederation of its TRUTH we have that of
officer BURKE, who saw GAMBRILL previously to
the murder, and within fifty yards of the scene of
its occurrence, engaged in the identical disturb
auces which led to its commissions whose recollec-
ton agrees exactly with that of officer RIGDoN as
to the color Of his dress who not five minutes be-
fore, was threatened by GAMBRnL, in case he did
not release one Of his drunken companions whom
he had taken into custody who saw him in the
act as he thought, of drawing pistol saw him
start in pursuit of BENTON and RIGDoN, who had
arrested another of his friends and were taking him
to the station house, and who finally tcstfes that
so soon as GAMBRILL had time to overtake the
party, the shot was fired and BENTON was
killed. Then we have the testimony of officer
Brown, who met and recognised GAMBR1LL
halfway between the pavement which was
the scene of the first disturbance, and the
corner of the street where the murder was COM
mitted, and of Captain LINAwEAvER and MICHAEL
HOFFMAN, who after hearing the shot, but in igno-
rance of what had happened, met and recognized
GAMBRlLL on Pennsylvania avenue, running away
from the scene of the murder. All these witnesses
H., H..
GAMBRrLL perfectly well; agree in their description
of his dress and appearance, and, with the add-
tional fact mentioned by LINAwEAvER and Horr-
MAN. that GAMBRILL attempted TO elude their obser-
walton by drawing his hat over his face-certainly
not the natural impulse of an innocent man-their
testimony, as whole, forms body, of circum-
santal evidence in favor of GAMBRILL's guilt
scarcely less conclusive than the positive testimony
of officer RIGDoN. Then, that no link in the
chain of circumstances may be wanting, we
are furnished with partial evidence, at least, of
motive, in the previous threats of GAMBRILL adj
dressed to officer BURKE, and in the subsequent
remark of his friend and companion DAVIS,
who was with him. when afterwards told of
the death Of BENTON, and whose commentary
upon the fact, was that Che ought to have been
'killed long before" Whatever motive GAM
BRILL may have had for interfering in behalf of
his friend IsENHARDT-when arrested by BURKE
the same motive may be presumed to have oper-
ated equally in favor of his friend HoUcK, who was
being dragged to the station house by an officer,
who was not only generally obnoxious to the
whole gang to which GAMBR1LL belonged, but was
the principal witness against brother of the lat
ter, upon an Indictment for arson Here then, is
the case against GAMBRlLL as it was presented
at the trial, and which was but feeby and I'M
successfully attempted to be controversial by the
production of testimony to the effect that on the
evening of the murder, GAMBRILL wore dark clothes
instead of light, as had been testified by the wit
nesses for the prosecution, and that about the
time of the commission of the murder, he was some
three or four squares off at or in the neighborhood
ofhis own house. Apart from the fact that ma
jority of the witnesses for the defence were men
totally without character, and whose evidence the
jury probably disregarded altogether there needs
only the suggestion of the possibility of mis-
take in point of time, to render this testimony
perfectly consistent with that for the State
That GAMBRILL did actually change his clothes
Immediately after The murder is proved by the fact
that when arrested by Captain LlNAwEAvER, he
was dressed in dark clothes, and that he was at
his house but short time BEFORE and again SUBJ
sequently to the commission of the crime is also
probably true. One omission there is in the testi-
mony for the defence which deserves to be noted
In order to prove that GAMBRILL did not fire the
shot, it was desirable to show that some other
person might have done it. 1t was accordingly
testified that at that time, there were number of
persons surrounding BENTON and RIGDoN, which
statement is repeated by Mrs. CATHERINE BEARD,
in the 'newly discovered evidence" which has
since been published. Now these persons must
have known perfectly well who the murderer
was-tbeir opportunity for observation being
better, if possible, than that of RIGDoN even,
whose attention may be supposed to have been
partially occupied by his prisoner Yet how
happens it that not one of these persons has ever
been produced-nor so much as their names even
transpred? The only individual who was GER
his victim-was HoUcK. Even he has never
been put upon the stand-or asked to tell which
of his friends it was that nterfered so fatally in
his behalf. Under such circumstances, therefore,
and upon such evidence, can any one wonder that
the Jury should have convicted GAMBRILL p
Would it not have been matter of public indigna-
ton and establishment, if they had done otherwise?
So far as the facts of the case were disclosed at the