The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1872-04-27
Insulted Common Sense.

If the decision pronounced by the Supreme
Court Of California, in the case Of Laura ID.
Fair, were one which merely demonstrated 4 legal
quibble or technicality, this journal would ignore
the whole matter; but it Is not, for 1t aims a
deadly blow against the vital principle Of all the
relations which subsist between men. Common
sense is the ground upon which mankind meet
for the transaction OF business it is that measure
Of human wisdom and natural sagacity which Is
common to all. and the universally accepted
umpire Of any question that may arise. Il Il
this principle that has been invaded and insulted
By the decision rendered. The Court holds
first, that evidence affecting character of defendant
for chastity was improperly introduced second,
that the law requires. when two counsel are
engaged for the defense, that one Of them should
have the closing argument, and that this night
was refused 10 the prisoner at the bar. The first
point under consideration refers to the reception
OF evidence touching the defendants reputation
for chastity. Her counsel studiously strove to
damn and biacken the reputation OF the murdered
man in their attempts to prove that It was through
his articles, wiles, a~llurements, and guilty prom
ises Of marriage. that Laura ID. Fair was preclpI-
tated headlons into the abyss of vice. 1t became
necessary TO refute or rebut this charge. and the
correspondence between the victim and his slayer
was quite sufficient TO show her utter want of
chastity, while her own voluntary remarks upon
the stand relative TO her views of the relations
that should subsst between man and woman
forcibIv demonstrated her Unborn lewdncss.
She was tried on the charge of having COM
mitted murder. and her guilt was proven beyond
all cavil. 1t did not mitigate the character Of
her crime to show, from her own correspondence
and admission. that she was a harlOt as well rs a
murderess. The second objection raised by the
Supreme Court, is to the effect, that one of her
counsel-there being two of them-should have
had the closing argument. This Is a legal tech
nicality Of too trivial a character to be advanced
as a sufficient reason for the contempt shown for
common sense, and the indignity done to justice.
All the evidence in the case had been sifted and
weighed the defendant had received n fair, open,
Just, impartial trial before n magistrate who
possesses the confidence and respect of the whole
community. She was defended by eminent coun-
sci, who exhausted every device Of law to secure
her acquittal. There is no allegation that perjury
was committed. There is nothing to show that
she did not do the killing, or that it was not done
with malice pTepense. 1t is not claimed IN her
behalf that she was innocent of the crime, nor
was it shown that she was not at the time in SdRd
mente Ell c0rpOre SdnO. Whenever the accused
has-either through poverty, or some other
equally good cause-but one counsel, the Prose
cutting Attorney is charged with making the clos
ing as well as the opening argument. Can any
one assign good reason why the individual who
has but one counsel should undergo double
jeopardy as compared with the person who has
two? Is not life or liberty, in one case, as sweet
and precious as in the other? Are laws made
for the special benefit of those who can fee two
or more legal defenders Clearly, the law stulti-
fes itself on this point and, as clearly, the
Supreme Court is cogniZant of the fact yet it
preferred to insult common sense, and override
justice, rather than disregard "a frivolous, pernl-
cious, unjust technicality. 1t is admitted that
the Supreme Court is plausibly constrained by
the principle that its province is, "jus deere, Sed
jas non dare,'' and this is the only ground that
can be occupied in support of its decision. The
gentlemen who honor the Supreme Bench have
undoubtedly been actuated by the purest motives,
but their decision is most unfortunate, as it tends
to give force to the impression, which is becom-
ing altogether too general. that the dividing line
between law and justice is the bankers counter.
Francisco Commercial Herald.