The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1872-10-19
Acquittal Of Laura D. Fair.
Especial Correspondence N. O. Republican ]
SAN FRANcasco, October 5th, 1872

SAN FRANCISCO, October 5th, 1872.
The great social sensation wlicl
has been the chief theme Of local top
| ic among all classes of our immora
and lawlessly inclined city is over
The g Fair murder case" is over, ant
San Francisco is now entitled to tho
belt as the champion city of the worlG
for the commission of the most high
handed outrages and cold -bloodet
murders, and the liberation of crimi.
nails especially those Of the moneyed
class. The verdict in this case wa,
received with ast0nishmenta and indig.
nation by oil but the few sympathiz.
ers with the murderess, and, in mann
instances, not until the report Of the
acquittal was repeated by other. par
ties, was it believed that such an ex.
traordinary verdict had been rendered
so much at variance with law and
the evideQce, showing a total lack Of
common sense, to say nothing OF
mocking ut justice and a sacrifice ot
conscience and dignity as men and
jurymen in q moment Of maudlin SEN
timentality mistaken for mercy.
The firat trial, eighteen months ago,
occupied twenty-eight days, in which
her history, that of her murdered par
amour and every body in any way con-
nected with the case was drawn, out
i'll extensO and published to the world.
Her character-which is the worst a
woman could possibly have-was
called in question, and proven by her
letters of correspondence and witness
es parttceps erimiyis, but by her own
words and an unblushing confession
that she " was married to Mr.. Critten-
den in Heaven" and totally disre-
garded oil human enactments on the
marital question, ETC.; in other words,
believing in the free love system. But
her character had nothing to do with
her guilt or innocence. Justice should
not stop to consider the morality or
immortality Of a murderer. The jury,
within twenty minutes after retiring,
brought in q verdict Of murder in
the first degree" The court passed
the sentence Of death upon the crimi-
nal.
NOf course, the case was appealed on
every imaginary ground possible. A
stay of execution was granted, and
the Supreme Court ordered a new tri-
al, on technical point, aud the only
one counsel for defense had over
lookcd-that the court erred in not
allowing the counsel for defense the
closing argument. The law says "the
defense aud r0secution shall alter
pate in flesat, aud the defense
niay have the closing argument" Aud
it is limited that the Supreme Court
must have been greatl. interested in
the prisoners welfare to travel so far
out of its way to hunt up flaw upon
which to allow new trial other than
any named in the bill of exceptions,
and that, too, the only one upon
which Il new trial could have been or
dered with any degree of legality.
Either that or cnviOus hatred to the
murdered Crittenden. No reasonable
grounds were shown in the application
for u change of venue, and it was
therefore denied.
At the new trial the former judge
absented himself under the customary
plea Of illness, aud judge from an
adjoining district was called upon to
preside, 80 that the former charge of
impartial ruling could not again be
made. A panel Of $50 Jurors was ex-
hausted and only one obtained an
other Of 200 with little better success,
until, finally, 900 jurors were exam
ined before twelve were obtained.
And Of those twelve only one seemed
to be man Of the world and possess
ed Of even ordinary intelligence. And
published III conjunction with the for
mer jury with their professions and
trades, which is fair criterion for es-
timation) shows marked contrast,
and that they were Of mediocre and
unstable minds, which is conclusive
by their own admission-that they
misunderstood their instructions. The
judge charged them, in the, language
of the celebrated Mordalnt case,
=" that where the defense set up plea
of insanity they must prove it by Il
preponderanca of evidence, and not
leave the burden of proof to the pros
ecution. They must fully substan-
tiate the plea, or else it falls to the
ground. It is not for the prosecution
to prove the sanity of the prisoner
that is taken for granted until proven
otherwise"
Yet, in the face Of this written
charge, the only two jurors who were
i'll favor Of conviction yielded after
being out sixty -four hours, stating as
u reason that they understood the
charge to be that =" where they enter
tanned any doubts as to the prisoners
sanity they should give the prisoner
the benefit of the DOUBT and they
did, though they have no doubts as
to her-guilt or sanity at the present
moment. 1t was also proven to their
satisfaction that several days previous
to and on the day of the shooting she
was sane, transacted several little
matters of 81 business nature, disposed
of some property for ready cash (sen-
sible), snapped of an unwieldy revol-