The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1879-04-18

he laws I'll civilization all nndeniable
light to a trial by Jury on evidence
which he not only feels assured, but
thousands npon thousands of others be-
Iieve, wonld today acquit aud xoner
ate me before any unbiased court and
IN this country. did not think
that IN praying for n fair chance to es-
my Innocence on vile crime
with which ! was foully branded. / was
o much of my native State. II
did not think that the Commonwealth
Of Vermont could be moved to the
kloodthirsty attitude she has taken
against one of her subjects by the per-
iured representations OF scheminp re-
ward-seekers and so-called detectives.
As murder by false testimony is the
most aggravated species of murder, il
cannot be justified in either heaven or
earth; and that i am a helpless victim
of such, God bears me witness, and will
yer hold my prosecutors strictly ac-
countable to Him for the great wrong
they have done me, and against which,
incarcerated in prison as L have been,
and afflicted with poverty, l have not
been able to successfully contend.
Wherever | found a friend among Jour-
n~alists, the bitterness of my enemies led
them TO stigmatize such as "Boston
Bohemians," because they conscien-
tiously questioned the integrity of the
disreputable band of pawnbrokers, and
the honesty ofthe two scheming reward
hunters, the self-appointed. so-called
detectives, who, with the purse of The
State at their command, were able TO
crush my hopes and ruin my chances
for an impartial trial, and my chances
for such relief from my fate as | sought
and thousands believe me entitled to.
This is the reason why | could have
no new trial, but must hang, in order
to make il appear to the world that it
is impossible for a Vermont jury to
convict IN innocent man. and much
more so for a poor condemned man to
have been deprived by bitter prejudice
of the benefit of the reasonable doubt
which the law gave him in his fearful
situation. My extreme poverty was
we'll known to the court. Theilaw only
allowed the State to award me 800 to
make my defense, while nearly SIS, 900
was most freely yielded TO secure my
conviction, and upon evidence most
cruelty false. My claims were ably
and faithfully presented by my counsel,
who charitably gave their services in
my defence. The result is the false ev-
idence has been honored and | must
submit to the forfeiture of my life.
In offering his opinion the Chief JUS
tice laid great stress on the fact of my
not taking the witness stand and testi-
flying in my own behalf, which was no
fault of mine, but an error on the part
of my counsel, who forbid my doing as
l intended. The same may also be said
with reference to the meeting of Mr..
Downing after my reprieve. | was
very anxious to have him come to
Windsor at once and pick me out from
among other prisoners. But my coun-
sci and some of the highest officials in
the State advised me not TO meet him
other than in court, lest the prosecution
should make a strong point against such
a meeting. He farther said that "ad-
hitting all that is claimed, the question
for the court TO decide is not what a Jury
might say as to the evide nee before us,
but what, in our judgment, they ought
to say
But / don't believe any unbiased Jury
in this country would render such a
verdict on the evidence which was pre-
scented to the court. The legislative
joint Judiciary Committee and my
counsel had faith that the supreme court
would give me an impartial hearing.
| embraced this faith, and was cheered
by the interest and sympathy manifest
ed by so many for me. The law giving
me Il right to again petition the court
was passed through respect for the nu-
mcrous earnest petitions that were
pressed before the assembly in my be-
half, and should have been regarded by
the court as being an outerowth of the
peoples direct petition to, moi only the
General Assembly, but to the Court
also. Those petitioners earnestly
prayed the Assembly to provide, by
law, for the protection of my life until
my guilt could be more satisfactorily
determined. The Assembly honored
the peoples petition by passing the
general law" which enabled me to
appeal to the court for that protection
and in denying it | can but feel that the
court has not only ignored the prayers
of many in my behalf, but in DENYING q
new trial most %grievously wronged me
The court was informed by the prose
cutting attorneys that if a new trial wa.
granted me | never could be convicted
They were right about that, and hat
the court been interested enough to asi
them why | could not be convicted, the,
would have urged, as a last plea, thcil
inability to get the unsound evidence
which convicted. me repeated on a sec
ond trial, which is true enough. Ii
denying my application for a new tria
in February, 1875, the court rendered
an opinion that if the newly discovered
evidence which was presented with IN,
petition had been giuen 10 the ju,y OF
my trial, il would not, i'm the court
opinion, have changed The verdict. The
courts opinion on the second and las
application was, that admitting all tina
is claimed, the question for the couit to
decide was not what a jury might say
as to the evidence before tnem, but whal
in their Judgment they ought to say
1t would seem then by this that the
Court had a right, perhaps in cases o.
emergency only, to act as both nudge
and jury, in the very face of law which
guarantees to every person accused O.
crime a right to n lair and impartia'
trial by a jury composed Oftwelve men
Now, if this Is correct, the question in
my mind Is whether or not l have beer
legally denied a new trial. These arc
my views of this painfully mysterious
affair, and while l bear the Court nc
malice in offering them, | cannot hclr
thinking that their decision has wronged
me. To me the feeling is irresistible,
that in the Court | have found no pro.
tector. l have from the first believed
and now more than ever believe, thai
the so-called detectives, Thornton and
Stearns, have In their possession eyi.
dence which would go far toward prov.
ing my innocence, If not wholly exon
crate me before the courts and the
world. The fact that they suppressed
important evidence in my behalf rela-
tive to my trip to Providence, on my
trial, makes this belief irresistibly
strong. The affidavit OF Stearns, which
was presented to the Supreme Court at
the recent hearing of my petition and