The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-07-13
THE NEW ORLEANS DEMOCRAT, SUNDAY JULY 13 -

q light had been seen In his room late at
night; the matches found In Mrs. Hull's
room were such as were used only In Dr.
HulPs room; criminal character had sworn
that DR.. Hull offered to pay him to murder
his wife. What cumulative proof could bs
added to this to establish the guilt Of the hus
haDd2
Now we come to the motive. For such
crime as this there must be motive. This,
even, was supplied. 1t was proved by
medical autopsy that Mrs. Hull was affected
by chronic disease, which, while 1t may not
have been disclosed except by post norton
examination, was calculated to estrange her
from her husband. He was jealous OF her,
they lived apart--in fact, there were grave
reasons for the presumption that the hus-
band was disposed to get rid Of his wife.
In addition to oil these facts. 1t is said that
DIR. Hull furnished the strongest proof against
himself, by his own distrust Of his innocence.
At the inquest he held down his head and
spoke confusedly and with the utmost diff
Guilty: he denied emphatically minor circum-
stances Of recent occurrence which were
pTUFGu CDuGlu5lF5lJ W Aibf1 ahRpEhUA 1sIia
which he could not have forgotten; he even
refused to look at the remains OF his wife. He
betrayed the greatest apprehension. But are
innocent men never afraid Of being thought
guilty? There has never been closer OBJ
server Of human motive and actions than
Charles Dickens, and he declared that hard
ened guilt could stare suspected innocence
out OF countenance any day. Experience
proves that innocence loses Its confidence
when pursued by plausible suspicion or OPP
pressed by prejudioes: and there are num-
bers OF cases on record where innocent men
have been convicted from the very means
which they had taken to clear themselves.
In one OF the cases to which we have re-
ferred, the accused, overcome by the startling
array Of circumstances against him, pleaded
guilty, and, In his confession. related what
purported to be detailed account OF every
minor particular Of the crime, in order to
obtain degree Of clemency from the court
Yet 1t was afterward proved that this con-
fession was fiction from beginning to end,
and that no crime had been committed.
Knowing the number and gravity Of the
circumstances that pointed to himself as the
perpetrator OF this fearful crime. is 1t at all
strange that DIR. Hull should have betrayed
the utmost apprehension We think not.
There is one more consideration in regard to
the value Of circumstantial proof which is
deserving Of particular remark. 1t Is thus
stated In the charge Of Mr.. Justice Bulen:
ut is not within the reach and compass OF
human ability to invent train Of circum-
stances which shall be 50 condBcted together
as to amount to a proof, without affording
opportunities of eontradicting a great part,
IL not ell, OF these circumstances There
never was proposition that could 50
little Withstand the test OF experience, yet
1t is one that Is universally accepted as true
The best proof OF Its fallacy is that there are
Infinitely more mistaken convictions on cir
cumstantial proof than by any other species
OF evidence. Suppose DR.. Hull had been con-
fronted on his trial by this array OF circum-
stances, what could he have done to confute
them and establish his innocence2 Being In
nocent, he could have no knowledge OF the
circumstances or events he would have been
required to controvert. His only recourse
would have been, either to prove an Glibi or
to show contradiction in the circum-
stances Of the proof against him. In
the latter event. the whole question
Of bis guilt or innocence would have
been narrowed down to mere matter of dia-
lectics and legal skill. The proof OF mega
tive Is always difficult, often impossible. Men
naturally believe probable falsehood rather
than singular truth, and any unsuccessful
attempt made by the defense to break the
chain Of proof. would itself be regarded an
argument Of guilt. This case deserves to be
carefully stddied In all its particulars by
criminal lawyers and judges. Indeed In all
the history Of criminal jurisprudence we
question II there has ever been another case
which fmpresses SO many salutary lessons
for the Judge, the advocate and the Jury.