Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-01-16
PAUL SCHOEPPE.
European Disciosgres---LettCr from Prof.
Gneist, Of Berlin.

Our readers remember the case of
DR.. SchOeppe, condemned to death for
the murder of his fiance, Miss Stein
eciIe, at Carlisle, Paris, and all are
familiar with the fact that he has been
granted time for a new trial. His
eOuntrymen have greatlyand earnest
ly enlisted themselves in his behalf,
Among others, 4 German resident Of
New York wrote to Prof. Rudolf
Gneist, OF Berlin, q prominent jurist
and author, member Of the PrusSian
Chamber of Deputies, and Of the
North German Parliament. The re-
ply OF the learned Professor will be
found below. 1t is Of extra ordinary
character, considering the wide extent
this agitation in favor of DR.. Paul
Schoeppe had assumed i'm this coun-
try, and the importance which at
tached to il in consequence:
Your honOred letter of November
9th, / received five days ago, and the
papers belonging to it three days ago,
and in great haste / did what was
pOssible 10 save the life of a country
man perhaps unjustIy condemned.
This was not easy, since in these
daVs the sessions Ofthe Cham bers and
nv participation at them and in COM
mitfee occupied the whole day.
To obtain the opinion of the judicial
faculty was impossible, for the reason
that the subject for g judicial revision
was not at hand, since neither toe
course Of the Judicial proceeding nor
the evidence taken on trial was before
Us. not even ia the form of newspaper
reports. It was only possible to de-
teTmine that the chemical and medi-
cal evidence for the establishment OF
the fact was unsatisfactory and erro-
neous. To this end / submitted the
case TO the Society Of Jurists here,
who Immediately selected q special
committee to consider what steps
NAV possibly be taken in favor OF
Paul Schoeppe. In this several of our
judicial experts have gladly taken
part, especially the court physician,
Prof. Limann, and the chemist, Prof.
SOnnenschein, whose high authority
will be recognized also in the United
States. These gentlemen concur with
the opinions Of American experts, as
published in your newspapers, that
the process adopted for the discovery
of prussic acid and mOrphium in the
BODY was inefficient and utterly errO-
neOus. Our experts could literally
subscribe to the criticisms published
ofthat process. Those criticisms come
from men whose names are well
known also among ourselves, and are
generally recognized as experts, Net
these opinions had already been laid
before the AttoTney-General and the
Governor, and a mere repetition of
them could not add to their authority.
But the opinion of the AttOTney-Gen-
eral declares those criticisms as not
decisive, for reasons against which,
from the standpoint Of the law as il
is among you, but little can be said.
In German legislation we have bind
ing provisions how TO proceed to
establish the fact in cases Of murder,
poisoning, etc. Under our laws and
the practice, as it has developed itself,
such unscientific, faulty proof Of the
fact. as in the case Of SchOeppe, could
not occur. So far as / know your
laws contain no such binding pro-
visions, but treat the proof of the fact
as any other part Of the proof OF guilt
and then leave the whole to the soye-
reign Judgment Of the jurors. This
Judgment is shaped by the totality OF
the proceedings and proofs, and it can
not be denied that in the evidence
produced, circumstances Of great mo-
ment are shown. prof Gneist here
enters into a somewhat detailed az
count of these circumstances pointing
against Scheeppe.) This makes it
impossible for a foreign jurist to give,
with good conscience, an opinion pro-
nouncing the verdict Of the jurors as
hasty and unconscionable. The to-
tality of all accompanying clrcum-
stances may establish in the mind OF
a conscientious man the fact of poison
ing, even If the assisting chemists and
medical men had proceeded still more
enormously than they did in the pres'
ent case.
Public opinion forms its judgment
of guilt or innocence from general inn
pressions. But this circumstance is
also unfaVOrable for Paul Schoeppe,
should he seek the assistance of his
countrymen, especially here in Ber-
lin. Our court Of jurors, some six or
seven years ago, made the acquaint-
anee of a certain Paul Schoeppe as a
most dangerous criminal, and SEN
fenced him for grand larceny and
forgery to the penitehtiary. German
papers assert that this Paul SchOeppe,
who was thus convicted at Berlin, had
been secretary to Count Blankensee
and robbed him of p, 900 thalers. }
Christian name, surname, age and
personal description agree fully with