Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-06-19
Face TO Face and Rack 70 Back.
New Orleans Times.

In the Bedford Weekly Star, pub
lished at Liberty, Virginia, we find
the charge of a judge to a jury IN a
criminal trial. 1t is an admirable
deliverance in every sentence of it.
Judge Davis is the magistrate and
the OCCASION was the sentence of
Peter Wright, whom the jury found
guilty of murder in the first degree.
Judge Davis said, addressing the
| prisoner: t
"A vicious sentiment appears to
have gained ground among men of
a certain class, that every slight
brawl, every personal alteration,
iustifies an appeal to violence, a
resort to arms, and the wanton de-
struction of human life. In the
judgmen of this court, the wanton-
ness with which blood is shed in
these encounters, is an element of
motive as evil and as deserving of
the laws's utmost rigoI as the most
clearly defined generalization. The
difference is only that in the cases
specially contemplated by the law,
the murderer exercises malice and
reconciliation against some one
individual /; in the other case the
murderer exercises malice and pre-
meditation against every man
whether he knows him or not, who
i'm any way crosses his will, offendS
his dignity, or withstands his
license. Such was the murder COM
mitted by you." +
All honor to that clear-speaklng
Judge. Wantonness is judiciOusly
interpreted as malice. And what
malice is so execrable as that which
is unprovoked 1t is the malice
which has already murdered many
unoffending citizens and constantly
threatens many more. All malice
is unmanly, but his form of malice
is especially unmanly. 1t is the
most reckless and cruel form of
assault upon the innocent and help
less. Self-defense is an unquestion-
ed right; but the slaughter of innO-
cent people under the pretext of
self-defense is different matter. 1t
is very different matter indeed.
1t is murder. Judge Davis very
mildly defines as 'viciOuS" the sem
tilnent that ''every slight brawl,
every personal alteration, justifies
an appeal to violence, a resort to
arms and the wantOn destruction of
human Iife." We do not compass
all the deviltry of such theories
when we denounce them as "unlaw-
full" WantonneSS, which causes
the death or wounding of innocent
people, should wear a deeper color
than drab "unlawful." 1t would
be truly described as a form of
homicide only one shade lighter
than murder in the first degree.
Its normal color is unfading black.
No community can wear an escut-
cheon so proud that it will not
appear defled by the f0ul daubs
shattered upon II by the "vicious
sentiment described in the charge
of Judge Davis. Not only is homi-
cidal recklessness las bad as pre-
meditation ~ 1t II generalization.
No one who Is properly charged
with homicidal recklessness can
escape the moral las it should be the
legal) presumption of premedita-
ton. When he has whipped out
his revOlVor and fred into a miscel-
laneous crowd of men, women and
children, he should be permitted to
set up in defense that he did not in
tend to kill the man or woman or
child whom he did kill, but intend
ed the fatal bullet for a scurvy fel-
low who c0ntrived to place the
women and children between him
self and his pursuer. Scurvy fel-
lows will always do something like
that; and even fellows who are not
consumed bY spHrVy are liable to
saak gaNar III a crowd when hOtly
beset by a would be butcher. No
fellow wants to be shot so badly as
TO deliberately stop and permit the
murderer to shoot him instead of
the crowd. The attribute of human
nature has been known 70 the law
for a COED many centuries. 1t long
ago reached the conclusion that il
could only protect the innocent by
making the shooter responsible for
the consequences of his apt, what
ever may have been his intent. OF
late years, there has been q drifting
away from this Just and rightous
and wholesome precept, 1t Il high
time to return to 1t, Let the inst
0ulprit who kills or wounds per-
son whom no did not intend to