The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-15

| room the court prOCe0u0O 10 0CraI8Q htuO Oh
a charge Tor piracy. and confronted hin
with the same self-convicted piratlcal wit
nesses, who were go valuable and hat
learned their lesson 80 we'll that the ao
cused declined to cross-examine, saying: ~
is In vain to ask any questions" Kidt
then called his old friends that had known
him before his unfortunate expedition, bill
associates In the naval war against France
The way in which this testimony was re
| ceived will give good Idea Of the fairness
or his trial The first witness called to char
acter was Capt. Humphrey. Before Kidt
| could ask him question Lord Chief Baror
Wood demanded with sneer, what ques
tion would you AK himp" The witness testi
fled that he knew Kidd In the West indies ir
the beginning Of the late war, and that he had
the applause Of the General, as he could show
by the Generals letter. Kidd asked, did
you know any thing that was guilty Or; any
piraeyr mo; but you had general applause
for what you had done from time to time =
Then the Chief Baron asked. How long was
this ago2" Twelve years ago." the witness
answered. "Thst was before he was turned
pirate was the comment Of the Judge, who
according to the theory Of the law was to act
as counsel for the prisoner. The remainder
Of the tale is familiar story. While the
second trial was In progress the first jury
returned with verdict, guilty OF murder"
On the other four indictments verdlots Of
guilty were returned, and thus the trials
which began on the eighth Of May ended on
the ninth, and on the twelfth Kidd was hung
~ hnI o1s ~, n
read. Although 1t must be admitted that
important changes have, since the period al
luded to. been made In the laws Of England
by which even prisoner indicted FOR felony
Is allowed the right to have the aid Of counsel.
one cannot help remarking the similarity of
conduct Ia the judges citing In the case OF
Capt. Kidd, and OF those who, nearly two
centuries later, disposed Of the claims Of the
person who desired recognition as Sir Roger
Tiohbourne. The same spirit Of intolerance,
the same brow-beating, sneering denial Of the
cvllities to which all accused persons are
presumed to be entitled before conviction, is
noticeable In each case. In one important
particular. however, the Tiehbourne claim
ant seems likely to fare better than did the
illustrious Kidd. The claimant was sentenced
to imprisonment, at most, for fourteen
years, and is, therefore, likely to
have an opportunity for rehearing
Of his case In the meantime. On
the other hand, Capt Kidd was hanged
until he was dead, dead, dead" and was thus
totally incapacltated from instituting any
further legal proceedings. The most he
could have done under the circumstances
would have been to make ghost OF himself
and poster the subsequent lives Of his Judges.
which 1t is not improbable to believe that he
did, although we are In possession Of no evil
dence going to establish that such was the
case. And then another thought In this con-
nection: As this is the era of restoration and
reparation, why should not the memory OF
even Capt. Kidd be vindlcated? or course 1t
would be impossible to restore him to his
rank and pay, but as 1t is becoming fashion
able to erect monumental tributes to illus
trious deceased, something might be done In
that way. Perhaps Mr.. Cyrus W. Field
might be induced to undertake the job. Who