New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-04-12

MURDER BY LAW.

Massachusetts, tomorrow hangs a man for murder
who has not been proved to have committed the crime
for which he will suffer, who never confessed It, who
never saw jury, who has had trial in any legal
sense Of that word and who on the testimony of his
own townsmen and of the highest medical authority
in the State is a dwarf and an imbecile. That man,
in those circumstances, Massachusetts hangs to-
morrow.
The history Of this case is without precedent, and
we trust may never DO drawn into precedent in the
future administration of what is called law in Mas
sachusetts. When Edward w. Green was brought
into court and arragned on an indictment for muir
der in the frst degree be refused to plead guilty to
that charge. Under the Massachusetts, statute only
murder with premedtation is a capital crime, and
whether the murder be with premeditaton is ques-
ton not for the court but for the jury Green asserted
that he did not kill with forethought twas stated to
him that the prosecuting officer would not accept plea
Of guilty in the second degree because upon the proof
in his possession there degree OF deiberatlon in
the act which legally amounted to generalization or
malice afoethought. Green still reiterated, as he had
steadily done while in prison. that there was no pro-
meditation in his mind. Thereupon his counsel took
him out Of court to argue him into the opposite con-
vcton and by presenting to this half-idotc intellect
the legal distinction between murder in the first and
murder in the second degree to persuade the miserable
wretch to plead guilty to the first. That counsel has
since stated that lad he then known the facts subse-
quently brought TO light, he would not have given
such advice TO his client. But he so far succeeded that
Green came into court aud made plea, which was
entered as plea Of guilty in the first degree. No
court should have permitted such manipulation OF
prisoner. There was time when 1t would not have
been tolerated in Massachusetts. While the late
ChiefJustce Shaw presided over the Supreme Court,
be consistently received plea OF guilty with hesita-
ton and reluctance. In well known case at Taun-
ton he talked TO the prisoner an hour before he would
allow his plea to be entered. lyon don't know
what you mean" I" But | killed the woman.
"You mean you struck her and she died.
Yes. Sir" THAT is manslaughter, is it not ~ 81
don't know" Then" said the Chef-Justce, " Mr..
Clerk record plea of Not Guilty, and let us try
this man" Were there other element of injustice
in this case, it would be gross outrage to hang
n man whose conviction was secured in such way.
Ex-Gov. Andrew, himself one OF the most eminent
lawyers in the State convinced OF the lrregu-
larty of these proceedings that he refused so long as
he was Governor, TO issue warrant for the execution
of Green. IL was his opinion, and Is to-day the
opinion of many Others Of the ablest criminal lawyers
in New.England, that Green never had had a trial.
He not only never meant to plead guilty of premedl'
tated MURDER he never did plead guilty, legally and
within the contemplation and purpose of the statute
under which he was arraigned The forms of law had
not been regarded, and to hang Edward W. Green, is
to hang man not legally convicted, and therefore,
in tho evo of the law innocent.
The legal propositions bearing on the case are BRET
" and clearly stated in this summary of Gov. An
drew's opinion and were argued by other counsel to
the Supreme Court on a writ of error:
The Judgment 10 this case Is erroneous.
The substance OF that the Court passed sentence
OF death upon tho said Edward W. Green instead OF sen
tence TO Imprisonment for life. .
Green had been indicted FOR murder II does not appear
from ANYTHING contained the indictment that the murder
was committed manner which constitutes murder IN
the r. degree murder in the first degree In any wise
| specifically alleged IN the indictment
Having heard the Indictment read the record sets oTth Dat
Green forthwith being demanded concerning the premises
in the said indictment above specified anG charged upon ~
he saith thereof be guilty OF murder In the INST degree
| There was o trial nor hearing upon the facts. .
No facts constituting murder IN the frat degree under the
statute ugushed from murder IN the second degree
under the statute specified and charged upoa MN IN the
| indictment. ,,,
Nor rers any @ specified and confessed in the de-
| PENDANTS plea ,---- =, -, .
| in the second degree Gen Stat Chap. 100 See p
The rst degree of murder DID not appear IN the
| nor did It appear In evidence -,
The oaease taeei0rs this record Is murder III the