New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-24


thought that the simple expression, Il am
not armed" was immunity from danger.
It would have arrested his arm IN the neat
of combat amid the dangers OF battle.
1t did not, however, effect the predeterml-
nation to kill, the unalterable resolution
to shed human blood. From the moment
that Mr.. Nixon entered that club room,
his life was weighed, and death had tipped
the balance. Cool, sanguinary aud deter
mined to slay, no words could appease MS
wrath, no magnanimity OF his opponent
could unnerve his arm.
Another consideration, gentlemen Of the
jury, is the fight of the accused. The
court will instruct you that the mere TACT
that crime has been committed and the
party fees from the consequences Is pre-
sumptive evidence Of guilt. As soon as
this fatal shot was fired, Mr.. Cammack was
lost in the shadows Of that dark street,
and is not seen again until nearly week
has passed. If his violence had been
prompted by selfdefense, he would have
stood still. as a brave man would, and
challenged the investigation of his coun-
trymen. Men do not shrink from the in
vestigation of an honorable and worthy
act 1t is only the unworthy and repre-
hensible that causes the perpetrator to
seek safety in flight.
Nor can the question Of character have
Influence with you, that only applies in
cases of doubt as to the facts. Let Mr..
Cammack be ever SO worthy, the presump-
ton is equally in favor of John Nixon,
who was his peer. A grand and noble
gentleman, he was brave and chilvalrous
as Knight Templar, and kind and gen.
erous as woman. Around his name
clung the prestige Of a distinguished COM
mercial career, and on his head the hopes
and happiness of family sunk when
that head was laid low. I shall await,
gentlemen, the further argument Of
counsel.
At the conclusion of the Attorney Gene
rails remarks. Judge 4. A. Atocha, for the
defense, said:
1t is my duty, gentlemen Of the jury, as
Junior counsel in this case, to state to you
the theory on which we rely for the ac-
quittal of our client. 1t can not be denied
that our defense has been open and fair.
We have appealed to no adventitious aid
we have tried to excite no prejudlces, and
bring to our cause no unworthy motive.
I must say, however, that the Attorney
General has read to you the law which
rightly defines criminal offenses. He has
stated his propositions openly and fairly.
There are really but two points in this
case: That Of character and that OF flight.
| The one determines the existence 4 OF
| malice the other, the presumption OF
guilt. This being the case, I must say to
| YOU that the conclusions Of the Attorney
General are not correct.
It has been testified, too, by the Chief
| of Police that his entire force was employ
| ed to search the a2cused out. He acknowl-
edged bis inability to find him. 1t may
| well be considered, then, that Mr.. Cam
mack could have made good his escape.
| But did he attempt it? On the contrary,
he voluntarily surrendered himself. He
came back to the officers of justice. say
ing: Here am-try mel submit my
| self to the laws
Is this the action of guilty man
Does this establish the presumption Of
guilt? But the Attorney General says
that Nixon's life was sacrificed 10 the
malice of Mr.. Cammack. Where is the
evidence? I deny it's existence. defy
this ,ury to find any evidence that estab
Hshes malice aforethought.
|
presumptions are in favor OF the accused
The burden of proof is on the State; anC
if upon such proof any reasonable doubt
remains, that doubt is IN favor OF the &C
cused. 1t must be such proof as vii
satisfy the mind of the Jury and leave NJ
impression of doubt or uncertainty. L
must, indeed, amount to moral certainty
such as would convince reasonable men
1t does not require merely that the evi
depce should disclose the fact of the guilt
it must leave no reasonable doubt of il
nocence: and ali criminals or persons &C
cused OF crime are considered innocen
until they are proved guilty. Now, MIR
Cannon, the only other person who saw
the affray, says he was leaning against th
pillar. also facing the accused. He say
lust as Mr. Nixon said II am not armed
the shot was fired. And yet the wount
was in the right side. How did it ge
there? l can not reconcile these contra
dictory statements. Taking the theory Q
the Attorney General am still in doubt
for if the shot was fred just as Mr.. Nixo
was turning round, the bullet could nc
have penetrated to the right side.
would have gone directly through tn
body.
The fact is, gentlemen of the jury, ne
ther of these men have told you the truth
Their testimony is incompatible with e!
tablished fact. Vix could not have got
the gallery in time to have seen what
! saws he saw. Cannon did not see what L
: saws he saw, because his evidence contr
f diets itself.
: What evidence are you to rely upo
then? 1t is found in Mr. Cammack's stat,
,, ment. 1t affords the only reasonable soil
, ton of the difficulty. 1t is supported b
the evidence of character he has giEel
| You must decide upon the credibility
| those two men, as contradistinguishe
l from the credibllity OF Mr.. Cammaol
5 You must believe one or the other OF the'
f three statements. Which is the mo-
reasonable? l ask you as sensible, reaso
2 able men; | ask the exercise of your re-
/ son, uninfuenced by prejudice. lou mu
do this, or prove your unfitness for tn;
jury boz.
This theory, too, is confirmed by Il
testimony of Mr.. Ripley. In the reading
2 room he heard distinctly the words, &
= away from mel" Then he heard the firm
, Would Mr.. Cammack have said, ego ava
, from me-" unless MIR. Nixon was approac
t ing or had approached him? 1t was ju
: then that Mr.. Nixon struck him, and NJ
r Cam mack, jumping back, fired. This
< the way the shot penetrated the right sid
5 1t is the only way it can be accounte
l for.
1 have thus hastily recited to you Il
3 law governing this case. | shallnow il
? vite your attention to the facts. II
l night of the eighth of January, Mr.. Can
: mack was seated among party Of frient
: in the Boston Club. He was engaged in