Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1870-03-10
For the Republican
A FAIR PROPOSITION.

4 -
The Democrat has much to say In the
way of asking the public to suspend III
judgement on the parties accused of thu
murder OF Sue Beaver TO presume thai
these parties are innocent until they are
proven guilty, "a course however. the
Democrat did not adopt in the Thorn.
burgh case,) and boastingly says, in effect
that when these parties shall have had q
fair, and impartial trial. and shall be de-
clared innocent, as il seems To think they
will be, that then their present accusers
will hang their heads In shame. Now
this all sounds very well, and is, ordinari-
ly, very safe rule to be governed by;
but there is something else to be consider
ed in this, as in nearly every other case
of the kind. But as the Democrat seems
to plead sc earnestly for fairness IN this
matter ! have q proposition TO make
which will certainly fall within that rule.
II is this: If Wheeler. and Vinall will
bring back Mrs. Hannah Hopkins, Mre.
Hannah Hopkins boy, Miss Lizzie Rich
hart, will restore Sue Beavers cores
pondence, which was stolen, and with
this evidence within the power OF the
State will go toTrial. and shall then be
declared innocent, there is not . member
of this community that will not do their
utmost to wipe out the stain that shall
have so unjustly attached to these men.
Until the Democrat admits that these
PARTIES are wiling to, and toiH do this.
let us have no cant about their innocence,
and the Injustice of pnblic sentiment.
If they are innocent they can have NO
fear from any of the sources Of evidence
have named Il is no more likely to
effect them than any other member OF
the community.
1t IL idle for the Democrat to under
take to deny that these accused parties
are directly responsible for the absence of
this much needed eviseuce for the State.
Bat let us pursue this thought little
father. Is il true, generally, that a man
ought not 70 receive any condemnation
from The public until convicted by the
courts2 Let us suppose a man commits
robbery, aud having secured his spoil he
suddenly remembers that his victim may
secure his punishment, aud at once Stays
him. "for dead men tell no tales" Is be
any the less murder because there is no
witness Of bis crime?
A few years ago man stabbed another
TO death on The streets OF our town. His
tria, was baffled off from term 10 term,
until the witnesses for the state were
scattered and gone, and finally the prose
cutIon sgainst hin was dismissed, is he
any less guilty of the blood OF his victim
because he was never CONDEMNED by the
Cain was never convicted by the courts,
and yet he will be branded as = murder 10
the end OF time
Such is the Inefficient character OF our
criminal laws and practice, that no one
with an offence, who mas money.
AMI friends, need ever be brought 10 trial
until ne chooses, which will only be, if
guilty, when lie, and lis counsel think
that all the material evidence for the
State is placed beyond its reach.
What is an acqui,tal under such circum-
stances? A satisfaction OF the public mind
of tie accused's innocence? No, on con-
trar,. 1t is confirmation, strong as proofs !!
Of Holy Writ" that be is guilty
close then. as l began with the props
osition, that Wheeler and Vinall give the /
State the benefit Of he Evidence / have /
sugges ted, and go 10 trial, ard If thereup-
On, they are acquitted, surely all those 4
who have thought them guilty will hang
heir heads in confusion and sorrow.
This is what call
CnvuOp GrSsy