The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1870-06-29

fef0S = SsTNSsS--is< -10t@' = -ASs--fe &c .
IL ArrsGt BGL
NEw YoxK, May 18th, lS7O.
EDIToR HAWAIIAN GAZETTE: Last week witnessed
the close OF the celebrated Mcfarland case with the
main facts OF which, all in Honolulu who read the
papers will no doubt by the time this reaches you,
be well acquainted This trial ended, as was an
tcipzted from the usual decision Of sneh cases in
Amercs. in the unqualified scouit;Sl Of Mcfarland.
the SLAYER Of Albert D. Richardson
From the nature OF the social questions involved,
and the prominent positions held by the principal
persons implicated in the affair, this trisl has at.
irseied more thar usual interest; and during its
prolonged continuance, the public has watched the
proceedings with an attention entirely dispropor-
tioaate TO the legal questions involved, or 10 the
materials afforded for sensation, though such have
20; been entirely lacking.
The practical question al issue has beer: Is jeal.
ousy justification for murders When Mcfarland
shot Mr.. Richardson for the second time and fatally
wounded him, 10 one had any idea that he was
an insane man. or that the deed was done under the
influence Of Sn uncomfortable onset Of frenzy. or
sudden III Of insanity. II was looked upon as the
eliminating, murderous act Of 6rEisl. passionate
man, seeking vengeance for an imagined wrong.
In giving their verdict, the jury doubtless ex.
pressed their Own unwilngness IS they did that OF
many Others minded 10 surrender the implied
privilege Of Furnishing 10 the death any one who
should make real isncied invasion of their mar,
ital rights They virtually decided thsi no man has
night, Tor any purpose, however humane or philan-
thropiC, to step in between smother man and the
woman who is or has been his wife. Throwing out
the question Of insanity, which, in this case was
merely plea trumped mp whereby to cheat the
E4llOws, the implied theory of marriage. on which
jurors have founded their verdicis in this and other
similar cases. Is that the wife is the property Of the
husband and il his treatment Of her be snswerabe
TO no one It must however, be confessed that the
lsHdable sentiment now grown TO be almost oou-
vietiou that in any case murder Is not sufficient
reason for hanging man, has added strength to the
willingness of juries to strain their oahs rather than
TO fad the prisoner guilty Of a crime which wo1ld
entail the infection upon him of the extreme penalty
Of the law The belief il the justice or necessity Of
capital punishment has indeed. been greatly shat
tered Of late years But it is quite noticeable thst
the very class which yearly furnishes the largest
number Of candidates for the halter firmly advocates
the necessity and utility Of the gsllows parallel
to which We find in the fact that. almost without
exception, far heard from, the tyrsnts of the
household, and the spoilers Of womanhood. sre
loudest in their approval and defense Of Mcfarland
Il Is certainly unfortunate ihs; there exists this
great discrepancy between the intelligent feeling Of
the community and the law Of the land touching
murder, the result Of which is that many acknowl-
edged criminals 20 scot free whilst the Law is sure
TO be enforced only in the case Of some WRETCH Ike
Jack Reynolds, who has no money. 10 friends 10
political or social influence. No doubt the sppesr
ance upon tie Wiiussssnd Of so zbie and plausible
man IS DR.. Hammond, giving testimony, as med
iezl expert that would ST least tend TO beiog the
minds Of the jury as to McFarlands perfect sanity
the time Of the commission Of the act though il
can Rot, BY any means, be said to have proved hi.
iasanify at that moment, bad much to do with The
verdict OF the jury in this case Throughout the
whole Of the affair, the nature Of the testimony ad
mited and often the rulings given for the exclusion
Of testimony, were such as TO make If seem as
though if were not intended for trial of Mcfarland
but rather of al who were in any way associated OIL
identified with his victim
The counsel for the defense, throughout, INDUCED
in the most brutal and Outrageous blAekgusrdism,
seeking 70 bresk down the testimony given BY Wit
nes<ez tor the prosecution BY the most unscrupuIous
defamation OF character, even grounding their ma
ligani ezlumnics upon attentions and kindesses 70
Mrs Richardson, which, Il shown to any other
woman under the same circumstances would have
been l2uded TO the skies Such, however. was the
indignation with which the public at large received
these libelous attacks and unexpected the large
number Of friends who 81 once started ID TO rcpel
them that Mr. Spencer, the junior counsel On the de-
Tense, felt compelled to publish card in which be
withdrew his zezndalOrs charges against Mrs Run
kle whose friendship for, and suecor of, Mrs Rich
ardson, having been the most decided noble and
self-saeHhcing, had, accordingly, been thought
worthy Of the most Tirulent abnse- This letter Of
retTsctiOu and apology brOughi down on Mr. speu-
Ger the wrath Of his senior colleague and caused
his withdrawal from the case Mr. Grzh..n's thicker
skin and sIighier sensi;iTeness TO public eeusurs
made him feel no necessity for N apology. But
What public opinion alone could not do was accom-
piished BY the calm presence and force Of high
toned lady Il Vas pleasant TO see the wild beast
in Mr. Graham eOEed BY the clear, resoiuie look Of
Mr. Rankle, when that lady was brought upon the
stand During the two hours and a hsIf IN which
she Was giving her testimony, Grshsn's manner
towards her parfook Of the mosf studied Difference
and courtesy And when, at oDe time, in aIluding
10 Xrs- RankIe, then the stand he Inadvertently
used the expression, this woman" he corrected
hiEzeH, and apologi1ed on the instant