The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-01

abolish juries, and do away with Judges. IL
wes one OF class Of murders which have be-
come common In this city. within \ year or
two y number OF old women have been mar
deftd, aud 1 have heard the learned counsel
the necessity OF protesting this class of society.
Tor they are unable TO protect themselves More
especially are they TO be projected from the
The speaker then said that there have been
, ,n0Sy ~, Vn ~ nSve % veen
that presented here. He was OF the opinion
that there bad never been testimony so strong
presented against any man In this Court. He
Then explained oircumstantial evidence, and
was Of the opinion that the counsel for the
danger OF convicting upon circumstanLial
evidence. There ere out eleven cases of cir
there has been no reason 10 doubt the pro,
pfiety OF the judgment, and some OF these
were not convictions on purely circumstantial
The speaker theH alluded TO the physical
facts IN the case, which ne claimed point To the
tisted OF the fact that the prisoner and his
mOtherin-law 1--we In tue same house; the time
OF the murder and the condition OF things we're
favorable for the commission OF the murder by
the prisoner. These points were elaborately
by adopting a theory OF the manner in wnioh
the murder was planned and perpetrated. IN
for tine Con monwealth. He dwelt with con-
siderable force upon the dress of the prisoner
when he edmitte d sarah Campbell 70 the house,
accusation that he had committed the murder.
MIR. Hsgert then related the chain OF clrcum-
nent among which was tho presence of blood
upon his shirt and vest. both of which articles
he bad put on after the body mad been carried
In aud afier he had been arrested. Mr.. Hagert.
In It's turn, touched upon the question of
motive, and argued tuat It had been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. He closed mis- ar
gument, which was four hours In length, by
calling upon the jury TO give the evidence
close end searching consideration. and, ~ they
believed the testimony OF the COmmonw wealth,
to render verdict of guilty. ~
m
said that 10 the jury was committed the all of
the prisoner az the bar. In the dark hour OF
people, lsshed into fury by the press, intensi-
lied and directed by the agents OF the law who
demand a victim, his hopes of safety and
release from perl rest upon the great oulwark
Of American llberty-trial by Jury. After
alluding to the course which the ne wspaper
press had pursued, the speaker said Inat
enough had been SHOWN In the trial OF the
lace are 10 try any issue OF faot-how i'm portant
| IL was to uphold aud sustain the Independence
OF jury trials In failing 70 do so, falling 10 do
might condemn the innocent, and 80 doing.
they meRnly bowed 40 The rampant spirit OF
| outrage which threatened to erect the tribunal
by jury.
lie claimed that the jury would net surrender
| their consciences to satisfy the temporary pas
| sion Of the rsbble. Under the responsibility Of
| the oath which they had taken they had TO
listen TO the defense OF the prisoner, and he be-
| lieved that their verdict would fling open his
| prison door, dissipaLe the fouI calumnies whieh
| backen his fair fame, and r,store him TO his
| father, ta his wife, and To society, OF which he
had always been an honOred and cherished
| member.
He reminded the jury OF the cardinal max
inns that Every person is presumed TO be IN
uocent until proved guilty" and 1T is better
| that many guilty persons should escape than
that one innocent person should suffer- These
maxims, he asserted. should address them sci YES
| to the mind with accumulated force, as there tx
fair presumption Of the prisoners innocence.
| That presump ption should be overthrown before
the jury could even question how far he In
guilty. Assuming that there was enough testi-
mony to destroy the presumption, it must be
next shown that a motive existed 70 induce the
prisoner TO commit the crime. He claimed IA AZ
no such motive had been proven.
To convict Twilchell the jury were asked 10
do solely and entirely upon circumstantis al
evidence. The speaker held that no matter NV
whom contTao icted. IL was unsafe 10 oonviot
any one upon circumstantial evidence, as tne
books were full OF bloody examples of the
death of the innocent convicted upon such
testimony. He quoted many OF the cases, and