Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-03-26

- -
nulin, French, Harris, Hart, Murtsgh, Ran
dOlpb. lhees, Scott, Stuart, and WOODWARD
-. Nays-Messrs. Allen, Moore, Richards, and
The second and third resolutions were passed
unanimously, and the report was then adopted.
SCHOOL EXPENSES.
Er. Hart, from the committee On accounts,
submitted a report for the expenses OF the
schools for the next fiscal year, which is to be
laid before the legislature: For salaries to
teachers, supplies, medals, diplomas. contingent
expenses, &C., IN all s16s, SIS. The report was
Superintendent Wilson presented the appli-
cation of Miss Martha May for the position Of
teacher; which was ordered to be fled. Also,
the cost OF the following school buildings: Cost
of Jefferson school bailding - site, SIS, 625;
building s121 94S10; furniture 81, sc; total
cost, Sis, 1876. Cost of Cranch school build
ing-site, Se22; building, s23 ,s5i.3I; furniture,
e, Ce2.50; total cost. S26, 1882.
The board then adjourned.
tatiOn Of O'Brien's Sentence.
General Butler has written the following let
ter to the Hon. VIM. E. Chandler upon the
O'Brien case:
WASHINGTON, March Is, 1873
DEAR SIR: Gou asked me day or two since II
knew the reasons which Induced me President to
answer YOU frank ~ that do not, because have
never e9nmnnicated with the President on that
reasons which would have Induced me to to ask his
communication if the President had failed to act in his
SUPPOSE all will agree that for any crime, how
ever henous, the accused is entitled to impartial
trial according the principles of law-that is that
the Law only take the life IL man after all its
lieye TO have been done in the case OF 'Bren and
without spntng blame 70 any one, allow me to give
=, There is but one degree of homicide which, under
the principles OF the common law which prevail in
murder which is defined in the law 20 be the killing
OF human being with malice aforethought, or, IL
n nGal q
OF yustifiable homie ides.
How dense is the ignorance upon this question,
ing for mems blood without any knowledge of their
iieation in recent morning paper, Commenting upon
the case OF O.Brien, Which graLely declares that
mslice; while, in fact and in law, there never was
a murder without malice aforethought being ex-
pressy found by the jury under the instructions of
The act for which O'Brien is now suffering, and
been tbI-: he was soldier. with good record and
s IF s that h. Sss
acquaintance named Cunningham with whose fam
hsd applied to Brien for an appointment As Watch
pan: on day in September last, at g picnic, an
cured between o 'Brien and the wife of Cunning
ham, Cunningham accused O'Brien of having in
occurred between them, in which they mutually ac9
custd each other wives of unchastity in very
the iientenant Of police Hterfsred, took Bren :
baton and badge, and ordered him away from the
minutes afferwaris OBPen was returning to the
pavilion with the view, a, he states, Of seeing
had been informed, as was in testimony, that
Cunningham threatened to kill him before he
his ind f he ssn PfR1lSG%i
ham, and there was no evidence but the meeting was
as to what rst took place upon the meeting, sone
witnesses testify ing that the opprobrious Language
sued. There were other witnesses who testified that
they heard no such language but the weight Of tes-
words, if not in blows, was renewed. There was no
evidence Of any previous threats on the part of
evidence that he laborng under a great state Of
excitement up TO the time he met Cunningham.
ham made motion a. IF TO draw n pis,n1 mann
OBrien hut this is in dispute. In that condition of
he was accustomed to carry, and had with him as a
P1licsmsn, snd shot Cunningham single shot,
Was this death, then, beyond reasonable doubt the
result If Iremeditated malice or malice afore-
the jury. The homicide was not denied, The pro,
vocation the information that 0'Brien had receiye ed
the Jury This question of fact Of the malice afore-
theught was solely question for the jury, aud if it
lawyer constructions Of law by the court T.
for one, should never have interfered.
and after certain exceptions had been taken and
argued bv the mother and wife of 'Brien who came
under my command and was in trouble. That call in
proper Gaze have never neglected. Upon examin-
been instructed that malice aforethought was pre-
sumption q the law from the fact of killing and the
the killing Itself This nstrueton in % se"t was
thai if the jnry found that O'B,ien killed deceased
with pistol, which fact was not in dispute the law
inferred from the killing and the weapon premedi-
/ also found that there was no instruction in tn.
charge of the Judge, which was taken at length bv
short hand writer, that the burden Of proof
The Prosecution to convince the jury beyond
able doubt q premeditated malice 1t seemed to me
that this took away from the Jury the only question
IN fhe case. The killing with the pistol admit
ted The instruction in fact that that being adj
mitied, the Law inferred thar done with MALE
that question unless the defendant could prove to
their satisfaction that he did not have malice
brought this question before the court upon
motion for writ of error, which was gued before
sent ms e.gnafion TO the President-noI sitting in
The case: The court, by majority only, oyerruled
opinion, in which he adopted the View Of the law
wssn Il hn,e Sc; forth that malice
IL case Of homicide where the method and circum
evidence before the jury: and, secondy thai ibe
jury ought TO have been instructed that the burden
reasonable doubt 70 them the fact that the killing
was done with malice aforethoueht.
does, in some cases, infer malice aforethought
That = true but It Is only in cases OF secret homi
pg the Killing not KNOWN mss ae bn an
prcpriate that recall To your mind the history of
Amer William the Cong eror had subdaed the Eng
lish pee pie, number of his Norman soldier. were
found murdered ia secret. To prevent this he caused
the law 10 be declared that where q man was found
to be killed in secret the law should presume three
thin gs First, that the deceased was a FrenchInan:
secondly, that the slayer was an ,glishman
thirdly, that the deceased was slain with malice
afnrethought. and that the hHndted OF precinct i'm
which the body was found she uh be aInerced i'm a
hne, which Was called 0nvdyB8l, from which we
have the term murder. The humanity Of law has
got rid 81 the presumption that every man slain is
a Frenchman, and thatevery man killing is an Eng
shman, Int still retains, in Of hemicide
the resumption that il dore with malice afore-
tsoUghi, as IL cannot be known how il was done
This presumption in case Of secret homicide-
making murder IL circumst or evidence pOipt
enormously imported into the case Of ,Brien
where all the circumstances were known: and oh
Tins opinion was the Chief Justice Of the Supreme
c. urt 81 the District.
Yor remember that O'Brien was tried almost i'm
mediatsiy after the homicide, when the copnpunitv
was greatly excited, and when there was a general
demand, especially in the newspaper press for a
legal victim and under the circumstances he hardly
Could have had fair trial, however DESTROYS both
court and !ury might have been not to yield to
popular pressure and what is usually q senseless
clantOr.
Believing from the evidence that O'Brien was
guilty Of nsnslaughter onlyA or, As the higher
classes Of that crime sometimes denominatc,l.
murder in the second degree" and finding that
there was so much doubt whether he tried under
dissented from majority Of the court, and ayerre
that he had not been; and having been deprived by
the fact that Judge did sit Of the opinion Of
Tsh bax-a