The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-03-08

which have cited my authorities, but
R friend, Mr.. Blank, will not dispute any
them unless he proposes to take issue W
the law and the Constitution of the Unit
States of America.
b "Mr. Blank calls this plain case.
: all of his reading and practice he has noy
D met so plain a case. That is not hard
r believe when We consider how exceeding
= ciacumscribed has been his reading al
practice. Why, sir, this case involves son
OF the most intricate principles of organ
law, somo of the most subtle emotions
human volition.
81 do not deny that my client here toe
the hog. But am going to prove by IL
law that I have here noted that he commi
ted no crime when he took the hog Whl
does it take sir, to constitute crime? Th
| United States statutes at large declare tina
it is the intent. When my client took thi
hog, did he intend to steal him? Did sin
| gle witness swear that he took the hog wit
felonious intent? No. And they coul,
not so swear without committing perjury
for none but the great Jehovah llimsel
knows the intent of a hungry colored maj
when he takes possession of fat shoat. L
is in proof, sir, that the hog was in good
order for meat. That's strong point in
the case, and wish your honor to bear il
in mind.
1t may be supposed that my client
intonded to eat h IN, but are you going
to hang a man upon a mere supposition?
Perhaps his intention was to dress and
butcher tho hog and divide him out to the
poor Does he deserve to go to the Peni-
tentlary for thatG The Bible commands
us to give to the poor and not to let the
right hand know what the left is doing 1t
is possible that the right hand of this de-
lendant took the life OF that hog without let.
ting his lett hand know anything about the
transaction, and if he had not been inter.
rupted it might have been the intention of
MS left hand to distribute the pork to the
,oor without letting his right hand know
tnything about that Thus, but for the un-
imely molestation, my client might have
zone forward fulfilling the Scriptures and
loins good to suffering humanity. The
whole case, if your honor please, hinges
lpon the intent of the prisoner, and can |
nybody tell what that intent was? 1t is |
ne of the most doubtful things in the |
lorld; and all the law books, all the decis- |
ons and the constitution OF every State in
he Union enforce the doctrine TINT wherever
here is q doubt the prisoner is entitled to
ne benefit of it.
'But, cir, | do not propose TO rest this
lse on the intent of the prisoner | am
DING to show by the law that he is an inno-
ent and presented man. Let me call your
Onor's attention to case exactly anala-
'us to this in the Eghty-seventh Kansas
eport. A Frenchmau had stolen sheep.
Q was prosecuted for it and convicted in
10 lower court, but appealed his case to
10 Supreme Court of that State. That
'urt held this language; Although the
'oof il clear that the Frenchman ap> .
opriated the sheep, yet the court believe
at he committed no crime in the appro- |
iation because it is a well accepted prin- t
pie of law that when party has a notori- V
s and acknowledged weakness for a "
ing, or, in other words, an excessive and I Il
governable fondness for it, the law is a
und to excuse him if he takes it, because q
has not the power to resist The law is A
aritable and tender towards the constitu- +,
nal iniirmities of its subjects A French |,
N has such ungovernable fondness for I,
ltton, that this court believe he took the
,ep because he couldn't help it, aud is, nj
.refore, excusable under the law =,
Now sir, continued Snailor, warming ci
chow does this decision of the Supreme te
urt of Kansas apply to this defendant? d,
eed not tell your honor that a darky has &c
reakness for pork. 1t would be idle to to
ste words upon proposition so notori- vi
and self-evident. 1t is his pct weak al
s-the softest point of his nature. If
sees fat shoat running loose about his hi
misses he can no more silence the still in
voice of his stomach which tells him i'll ST
language of Scripture, to rise Peter, It'll
and eat, than he eau take wings aud be
If he secs fat pullct calmly sleeping If
-he fence as he passes by his neighbor's nc
SO at night. it is as natural for him to tn
ii up and capture the said pullet and cit
her under his coat, as it is for duck or
win. Nature made him so. He can't die
lgs his color nor his instincts. Shall AT
sir, raise a quarrel with the Almighty? sal
be law to lay its iron hand on this inno-
man for doilg what he couldn't help up
lg? No, sir The law says no. The Scrip bel
S say 40. Common sense says no. agi
are cries ont in tones of thunder NO TIN
man is innocent aud should be dis III ~
'ged, with your honor's pious admoni- kin
TO pursue the path of virtue and in
ity. 20
Again, il your honor will permit me, Re- Re-
call ynnr attention to the case of Sneid- on
Sleizwip vs.. the Commonwealth of Mis- els
i. Sloizwip was full bloOded Dutch "a
of st. Louis. 1t appears that, unlike
of his couutrymen, there was a streak it.
ragabondism in Sleizwip. He was a wo
,tless Dutchman, and quickly ran c.,
ugh his patrimony, at the beer stand of No
Prebaish His inherited partiality for gre
had been immensely stimulated by as str
ous cultivation at Prebatsh's, Bat his