Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-07-10

uldlIGIS.
Arriving in New York, still armed with
the pistol, he seeks an interview with
his father, but not finding him, writes a
note asking him to call at the hotel,
writing, Il want to try and settle some
family matters. So far. is the case one
of deliberation or insanity. This was
the day before the shooting. The next
morning, the father calls upon the son,
and is shot to death. No one but the
Omnipotent and Frank Walworth knows
what took place in that interview, be-
side the facts of the firing of the fatal
shots. Was he conscious of what he
was doing? Was he aware that he had
violated the laws of his country Or
was he an insane man, incapable of
judging between right and wrong and
unconscious of what he was doing Let
him answer for himself. He had ''tried
and settled the family matters, and
with his father, yet alive, he walks
down stairs, to the. clerk of the LOtel.
saying, Il have shot my father, and
want you to send for policeman" To
his uncle he telegraps, II shot father
this morning" and at the police station
he says, Il have come here to give my
self up, as | have shot my father" Is
this cool deliberation or insanity? If
he was in such state of mind that he
knew not the consequences of his acts,
would he have known that he had any
need to give himself up ?" Upon the
supposition of insanity, what, in his
diseased mind, had the police to do with
him or he with them? There is not, in
our Judgment, a scintilla of evidence or
plausible theory that is consistent with
insanity or anything else but the most
wicked. malicious, mproyokcd murder
of father by his son.
Mr.. O'Conor seemed to see this diff
Guilty, and, therefore. urged this mon
strous doctrine upon the jury: Here,
said he, ''was this father threatening to
break into the home Of his wife and
children, and with pistol shoot them.
''and here was this young man ready to
''defend his mother and family, even to
''the extent of violent resistance to the
''wild beast who came among them.
- That rus the highest and most honor
sable duty that cou7d dcgo5re upon any
''0aan, holceger oH or younq, and achen
they came to consider tie circumstances
''jn achtcd this poor g0ung man acas
Il - ; J,y
.'0ther than an ir0n-Handed lar 7chjch
"Said that, as tie lao had been gi0Lated,
''his Young life must be forfeited. J." Was
| ever so dangerous a doctrine urged upon
a jury by man of the ability, learning
and age of Charles O'Conor? With its
adoption, as principle of action, departs
the safety and security of society, A son
! for a real or fancied wrong done to his
mother, is justified in Staying his father.
! The seeds of distrust and discord may
/ be sown in the sons mind by a revenge
! full father and the mother may be the
victim. but the slayer, instead of being
| considered by ''an iron-handed law, 1"
shall receive the plaudit of "well done. "
! The Jury, thank God, did not endorse
this fearful principle. They chose,
rather. to sacrifice their manliness. The
statutes of New York declare that the
killing of human being, when ''perpe-
! trated from a premeditated design to
effect the death of the person killed, y
unless it shall be manslaughter or eX-
cusable or iustifable homicide, shall be
murder in the first degree. What muir
der in the second degree is, it is difficult
to determine exactly from the statute,
save that all cases of killing which are
not embraced under the other heads are
to be so considered. We have only given
the definition of murder in the first de
gree. which is applicable to this case,
and to make the matter plain we will, in
the language of the statute, define eX-
cusable or iustifable homicide, as kill
ING "by accident and misfortune, in the
heat of passion, upon any sudden and
sufficient provocation, etc. 1t will be
remembered that Frank Walworth
was not placed upon the stand
to justify himself, to show any
cheat of passion, or any sudden
provocation. 1t was not for moment
claimed that there could be any middle
course between guilt and innocence.
If he knew that he had committed a
crime he had deliberately determined to
do ii, if, in his judgment, it should be-
come necessary. Mr.. OConor, the 9th
er counsel and the court saw this. 1t
was either the wilful, deliberate act OF
cool paricide or the result of an insane
freak. There was, in law or in fact, no
getting away from one or the other con-
clusions. What the jury, in fact, de-
cided is difficult to determine. lie is
not insane, he is not justified, he is not
excused, he is murderer, but it was not
done in the heat of passion oron account
of any sudden and sufficient provocation ;
all this they have said, yet they say 1t
was not murder in the first degree. To
save a parricide from the gallows, the
| Jury stultify themselves. A parricide
has been found, but no jury with suffi'
cient manliness to cOnsign him to his
merited fate, A distinction without q
difference -and one which did not exist
has been taken that a man or boy
might, thereby, be sent to his life's pris
on rather than to bis death 1t ever
crime deserved prompt expiation it was
this. Public sentiment, however, is not
vet educated up to the point OF consld
ering all criminals alike. This was INC
vulgar MURDER" said Charles OConor