The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1870-05-17
THE MCFARLAND TRIAL.

Daniel Mcfarland was indicted for the
murder of Albert D. Richardson. The
defense set up two pleas-insanity and
justification. It is to be remarked In
the outset that this double lined defense
ought not to have been allowed. 1nsa-
nifty implies responsibility; justifica-
ton, responsibility. If, being insane,
he was responsible, no evidence tending
to show justification should have been
ad mitted. It was immaterial and for
eign to the issue. On the other hand,
if Mcfarland was to be defended on the
ground of just and sufficient cause, the
necessary implication was that McFar-
land was in sound mind, able to judge
wisely. On the hypothesis that he was
insane this would be impossible. The
two lines of defense we're thus manifest
ly contradictory. No we'll regulated
Court would have allowed counsel to
adopt both. Both were urged, however,
and so much matter was brought into
the case that q Judge at Newark re-
marked, the other day, that it seemed
as if the WI hole city Of New York was
on trial.
The Recorder charged the jury that if
it found Mcfarland to have been in
sane, it should acquit him. The jury
was out two hours yesterday afternoon,
and brought in u verdict OF Not guilty.
What does this verdict mean? 1t Ger
tainlv can not mean that Mcfarland was
not guilty of the killing of Mr. Richard
son. On this point the evidence was
clear aud conclusive Ii must mean Ell
ther that Mcfarland was insane, or that
he had sufficient cause to kill. The ev-
idence as TO the insanity OF Mcfarland
h al Ir
pose that Que man in the land, we do
not suppose that his own counsel. really
belle, ed him insane. Wild looks were
saown and mut1erings, but bow much
did these signify? No man in his sober
senses attaches to them any other mean
ing than that of passion, The plea is
regarded as a dod4 e, weak invention.
u technicality. That Toledo muderer,
Bauder, to whose case we have once or
twice lately referred, was just as insane
as Mcfarland. No one but believes
this; no one but laughs at the asump-
ton of insanity in either case.
The plea to which McFarland's coun-
sci attached most weight, to develop
whose stre myth they bent all their ener-
ges, was that Of justification. We can
not see that any facts they brought for>
ward sustained them. We will go far
ther, and say that we can not see if the
facts in the case had indicated, in the
clearest manner infidelity on the part
Of Mrs Mcfarland, Mr.. Mcfarland
would have 5een justified thereby in
taking the life Of her seducer. A man
has no right whatever to take the exc
cution Of the law into his own hand,
save only in the case of self-defense |
A murder can not be justified by any |
other cause. The killing of Richardson |
was not done in self-defense. The |
wrong that had been done Mcfarland,
if any wrong had been done him, was
before the killing. Murder did not pro- |
tect him. 1t was nothing else than a /
piece of revenge, nothing else than the
execution Of paivate ven2 eance. Lynch |
law can be better justified than this
But when two years ago the citizens of
Seymour hung to the trees, men In ter
ror Of whom a whole region had been
living, it was denominated on all sides
an outrage, for which there was no ex-
cuse. Is it not a greater outrage that
one man should shoot down another for
the alleged perpetration of crime
which only affects himself personally,
and whose repetition can be most eff
fectually guarded againstS The wild
justice Of revenge this crime was for
ID erly called Better the wild injustice
Of revenge For the woman, without
whose consent the crime would have
been impossible, goes unpunished, save
of that sleepless monitor within and
the man is punished without the benefit
of even a lynch trial-[Cin. Gazette,
May, IL.