New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-12-01

that minister in New Orleans should b
something more than an apologist for th
passions of murder and lust.
FURTHER SHAME.
The attorney-at-law has a high publ
duty to perform-it is to make the mos
favorable defense of the most infamou
crimes. This duty tends to abate tn
popular horror which always attends tn
commission Of such crimes. and some
timee hurries people beyond justice int,
wrong. This defense of o criminal is no
held to be immoral in the attorney. It il
not his oath sworn by false witness; il
is not his deception forged on a court O,
jury. Justice winks mercifully upon thu
attorney from under her bandaged eyes
and mutters as she dismisses the criminal
from her presence: 1T is better that many
guilty should escape than that one limo.
cent should be hung" The attorney may
thus, without being himself subject to in.
dictment, employ all the engines of law,
argument and evidence to place his client
favorably before the tribunals. It is with
these professional characteristics that We
regard the astute advocates who have
for some years past vindica.ed Demo-
cratic defendants upon indictments
for having committed murders and
other criminal deeds. We have seen such
offenders provided with bail, or made
comfortable in prison, defended with
ability, and sent home in triumph upon a
Judicial decision that their undis2uted
act was not violation Of Federal law.
The same adroit spirit still actuates the
attorneys who appear for the Democratic
bulldozers. When the horrible details of
fendish cruelty were made known to the
world by the testimony of Eliza Pinkston,
the attorneys were for a moment mute.
The irrepressible indignation of all-even
OF their own party friends-was such that
the attorneys could merely mutter some
thing about cross-questioning, and with
true professional cunning let the matter
for the moment 60 over. Some of the Last
Ditch press stopped short at the testimony
OF this woman. They so headlined their
reference as to intimate its sensational
and dramatic" character, and even dared
to ridicule the miseries of human be-
ing who had suffered untold indignities.
The attorneys rallied. The next day
they were on hand with what they call
rebutting testimony, They introduced
evidence that the woman was of violent
temper and Of bad character. It was al
legged that she did not charge white men
with the outrsges committed.
We must remind the adroit attorneys
that there are no special pleadings in the
court of humanity. It was sad necessi-
ty of their profession when they had to
defame this poor mutilated and outraged
creature to defend, not even their clients,
for no one is on trial for the offense, but
the Democratic party, for which alone
they appear against this helpless woman.
We're she even person without charac-
Ter, these outrages are not against her
personally, but against the peace and
dignity of the State. Would the attor-
leys say that even convict in the Peni-
Tertiary may be maltreated with impunity2
We tell them, nc. Every human being
las rights which can not be forfeited by
my personal misdeeds. We say, then,
hat even if the futile defamation Of the
witness was true, it would not affect
ither the enormity of her wrongs or the |
of her words. But the adroit |
ttorneys will answer that this sort of
estimony is proper to render it probable |
hat the woman has not spoken the truth.
they thus introduce testimony that she |
lad given q different version of her
wrongs, Immediately after the occurrence.
We have occasionally heard Of persons
7ho fire a bullet-hole through a hat, or
'owder-burn forearm, to sustain a mar
alive of assault or defense To suppose
his poor witness allowed any one to get
p dramatic sensation at the expense of
veritable bullet wound and other visible
INJURIES, would be too absurd for even a
lacked jury of bulldozers. Her condition
just the same with that of another wit
ess who had been shot five times, and is
ow under the probe of the surgeon. Is
reasonable that either witness should
ave consented to such dramatic"
reparation.
Without choosing to impugn the Dem
cratic witness who testifes to the version
her wrongs given by Mrs. Pinkston,
e have no hesitation in saying that it
ould furnish the highest evidence of
elpless terror. Suppose this poor crea-
ire had told the story among the bull
ozers which she has trembled to tell
nder the protection of the Federal
oops? Could she in her ignorance ex-
'cted to have lived day afterward.
'idowed, childless, even bleeding from
Z wounds, would she have had the des-
ration to publish her wrongs almost
thin hearing Of the class who had
EpetEated them? The woman wished
live. God had preserved her NE a.
afss IL "a n - i. s.sss