The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-07-08
rRE UNCERTAINTY OF THE
SENTENCE.

Mansnelu Tracy WM"oit"' ~ ""i ~
borne In mind, In what we have to say,
that, although the conviction was only for
murder In the second degree-in accordance
with distinction made by recent statute
of New York-yet that the jury, in truth
and in fact, found the accused guilty of
wilful. deliberate malicious, prcmcditatcd
murder. In lnearly, if not every other
state in the Union, and in every civilized
nation upon the face of the earth, the YER
dict. or, rather, the finding of the facts,
which they must have found, would have
been simply guilty of murder, and carried
with 1t, as u penalty, the sacrifice of life
If the crime had been committed only five
days earlier, even in New York, with the
facts as e. tablished by the jury, the penalty
would have been hanging. The only dis
tinction between the two grades of murder
being in the degree of delbcration. Under
the old law, and under the law as it is in
Vermont, it was only necessary that DELHI
Grafton should prcccde the shooting, and
this may, sometimes,b be a fine point, as Re
cordcr Hackett explained in the Sharkey
case, by saying that the thoughts of some
men move as rapidly as light, while in
wave of the latter there are five hundred
billions in a second. From this Illustration
1t may be seen how yne act may, in real
ity, follow another, and yet appear stimuli
taneous. Now, as the lawis and as it was
when Walworth committed his crime,
there must be only such deliberation as will
not and cannot appear simultaneous. If,
therefore, Walworth had murdered his
father, for murder him he did, on the 2Sth
day of May, instead of the 3D. day of June,
Judge Davis would have declared that his
life was forfeited to his country, and that
he must be changed by the neck" until he
was dead.
If such had been the state of facts, would
there have been any hope of mercy held
out to Frank Walworth? Would Judge
Davis have taken any other view of his
case and crime than that his life was for
feited, and its sacrifice was demanded, not
80 much as punishment, but as a warning
and example to his fellow men! We know
Governor Dix well enough to feel assured
that no hopes could have reasonably been
entertained at his hands. His Roman
frmness, in this class of cases, has more
than once been displayed, and he would,
doubtless, felt it his duty to see that the
laws were duly executed. He, and lie
alone, as Governor, could have interfered.
As the tragedy at its inception, and the
acting of the several parts, were under his
administration, SO would the curtain have
fallen upon the final act, before its close.
What different spectacle is now disclosed!
We do not intend to find fault with the
verdict of the jury, or the actual sentence
of the court-undcr the verdict, the utmost
penalty of the law was invoked. But here
Is q youngman "clothed in his right mind"
found guilty of the crime of homicide.
That homicide was the killing of father
by his son. There is no excuse, palliation
or justification for the act, yet Judge Davis,
In pronsuncing the sentence of the courts
tells him-the convict-that he has hopes
of escape from life time of confinement
In states prison, sat some future day,
through executive clemency." The tele-
gram, which contains the text of the SEN
tence, further along, and at its close con-
tsins these significant words "Mr. O'Con-
or, 1t is said, is trying to induce the sheriff
to leave Walworth in the Tombs for few
days, that he may apply to the Governor
for pardon"
Right here We desire to make point,
and interpose an inquiry. Hanging for
murder may or may not be played out,
under this new statute of New York.
Capital punishment may be right or wrong.
Whether it is the one or the other, We do
not intend here and now to consider. 1t
is the great uncertainty of the duration
and extent of punishment that does and
must exist, with the absolute or practical
abolition of capital punishment, leaving
the laws, otherwise, as they now are, to
which we desire to call attention. In this
very Walworth case, Judge Davis intimst-
ed to this boy murderer-as romance will
call him-that he ought to have been hung.
His words were II have fearful doubts if
" 1.-THE testimony in the case-would not
" have justified verdict of murder in the
. first degree, for cannot conceive what
motives you could have had in pre-
"paring yourself as you did
except upon the idea that you had de-
4" liberately determined that his life should
:" be terminated by your hands," This is
the language of the learned and impartial
judge, who held the scales of justice equal
ly poised during the trial, not any words
of ours. Thinking this, believing this, ut.
tering these words to one whose "hOrrible
deed" he "shuddered to think Of" and
whom, if the jury had rendered such
verdict as he thought and believed they
should have done, he would have sentenced
to meet his death at an early day, without
hope of human mercy, he yet, when pro-
nouncing the mitigated penalty of the law
for lesser grade of crime, holds out hopes
of executive clemency. If Judge Davis
was correct in his ''fearful doubts"-and
very few will hesitate to say that he was
not correct--or if the jury were right in
their verdict and outside of a very small
circle of intimate personal friends whose
minds are swayed by love and rffection, all
will coincide in the belief that one or the
other view was correct there never was
or can be case so little deserving of elem
cncy. Yet in the very infection of the
penalty, its force, effect and potency as a
warning and example is destroyed by its
uncertainty. If so impassive judge, as
Noah Davis, can be SO swerved, by SYM
pathy, as to hold out the hope of pardon,
10 1t any wonder that counsel in the case
even Charles OConor- should appeal TO