Litchfield enquirer., 1870-05-19
Yitf96ela @nqnirer,
Litchfield, Thursday, May 19, 1870
The Mcfarland Acauittal.

V
 The Mcfarland Acquittal.
 The acquittal of Mcfarland was a fore gone conclusion, though the brutality of hit counsel seems to have put him in some lit. tie danger, for the foreman of the jury and one other juryman at first favored his con. viction for manslaughter. At the time oi the murder the Tribune struck vigorously for Netherlands conviction; but almost the entire New York press made made common cause against that paper, and reaction took place that was generally felt to render punishment of the crime impossible. We speak of the matter as having been thus settled long before the legal trial. because such is the conceded fact. @ @ !. The management of the defence was a disgrace to the legal profession. Ladies . were insulted. witnesses bullied, and the counsel for the prosecution threatened with personal assault The conduct of the New York press was of piese with that of MT. Graham. Assuming that the Tribune was on trial, every rival journal pitched in- to that paper with all the vindictiveness of personal hatred and all the heat of politi- cal election. Occasionally H. G. lashed out sharply, but in the main the manner of the Tribune has been unusally quiet and judicious. Finally, after the crowd had done shouting over the verdict, and the con- servative womcu whose office it was to Kiss the murderer and his foul-mouthed coun- sel had finished their disagreeable duty, the Tribune prints Mrs. Richardsons nar- rative of the life she had led with McFar- land, of her separation, and of her acquain- tance with Richardson. It is simply writ ten, is consistent with the proved facts, and explains in the most natural way all that appeared suspicious in her conduct. One cannot rise from it's perusal without the conviction of it's truth. Her great suf- ferings may have colored the facts, but, making all possible allowance, enough re. mains to damn Daniel Mcfarland to an in- fanny from which all the juries and jour- nals of New York cannot save him.
 There can be no doubt, however, that MT. Richardson was greatly to blame. AL though Mrs. Mcfarland was morally free af- ter her separation in 1867. law and decency were entitled to some respect Making love to wives within a few days of their separation from their hus- bands, and forming engagements for second marriage before the legal annul ling of the first, is 8 style of morality that cannot be too severely reprehended That Richardson soon appreciated this, his statement, published with his widows lett ter. fully shows.
 It is most remarkable that with it's citizens repeatedly com hitting murders and obtaining ac. quittal on the ground that a husband is justified in killing one whom he even suspects of being his wifes paramour, the state of New York fails to recognize the fact that adultery is a crime. In not pro- viding, also, for the imprisonment of per sons acquitted of crime on the ground of insanity, and in not allowing the prisoner, or his wife, to testify in criminal trials New York is greatly behind the necessities of the times. D.
 It is not little remarkable that the Tribune, which was of late scofing at wo- men jurors, should have so soon had such a fragrant instance of the evils which some- times result from the absence of women jurors Does any one imagine that vul- gar savage like Graham would have been selected to present a case to jury in part composed of women? Would even he have dared to attack in such gross way ladies whose only crime was active sympathy with one of the oppressed of their own sex? How stands the balance of decorum, too between the Wyoming court where ladies conducted themselves with entire proprie- ty, and the New York court where gushing females hugged and kissed Mcfarland, Graham or any other rufian convenient.
 But the saddest reflection connected with this sad business arises from the fact that Mcfarland is but an example of class ot husbands. Any man who cannot gov ern his temper or his appetites makes just such husband. "There are thousands of unhappy couples in this city, ''says the N. Y. Times, "with woes just as numerous and lamentable as those of which Mrs. McFar- land complains; but they are not matter of public concern, and ought not to be. t" Newspaper publicity, indeed, they ought if possible to avoid (which. by the way Mrs. Richardson could not dol; but ought wo- man to suffer the torture of years before she separates herself from such a man as McFarland? Is it not cne of the worst of the social tyrannies under which wives sui. ferthat they are compelled to conceal such wrongs2 In our opinion the great mistake of Mrs. Richard sons life was in not sepa rating from Mcfarland before they had been married a year.
 THE CAPITOL "A lively debate occurred