The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-06-27
THE nuRRIH CASE

we cannot fancy, what some of the press OF
Texas purpose by their volleys of abuse
against the people of Marshall or the Mar
shall jury or people of Texas who acquitted
James Currie last week. That journals hos
tile to this state and to its development should
thus direct and hurl their envenomed shafts
was to have been expected, but that our own
citizens should thus work counter to them
selves is beyond conception. What "the
people of Texas" did as lot of jurymen at
Marshall is merely what any other body OF
men under similar circumstances in any other
state would have been obliged to do. Then,
why this hue and cry against them? If there
is to be abuse or censure place it, visit it,
where it belongs. Do not strike indiscrlm-
inately. The HERALD took, and is
about the only paper that did take, this
position at the outset. And what
are the facts Briefly these, an old story,
that man charged with murder was ac-
Quilted on the ground of insanity by jury
sworn to be governed by the law and the ev-
idence. The law was positive and clear in
its dictum, the testimony to the jury's mind
was explicit, full and convincing, and the
verdict was in conformity. Only this and
nothing more. The press, it would seem,
have gone astray in their understanding OF
the case. or had not sufficiently reflected
upon the effects Of their course. One class
of journals assert that "the verdict is at va
rance with the evidence and in direct con-
flict with the charge Of the Judge. This
however, is merely opinion, however dog
matte the assertion, and is the familiar snec-
dote of the Twelfth man swearing that the
other eleven are the stobbornest fellows he
ever saw. One journal argues thus; "lf
Currio was at the time insane, his insanity
was the result of protracted intemperance, a
crime in itself" Another announces; "This
mockery of Justice is disgrace to our age.
All the world knows that the killing of Por-
ter was an inexcusabe crime" Another :;
"This decision is legal outrage. The
doctors are psrticeps criminis. The verdict
is an outrage on the law of the land" Another
SAYS: at is most stupendous farce and n
mockery of justice. The influence of money
ia potent and in the case under consideration
it was literally and effectively used" Anoth-
or one insists "The excuse Insanity OF the
iury is one of the most transparent, puerile
and absolutely ridiculous ever entertained in
any civilized country" Another one urges:
thereafter all that a man has to do, so as to
kill his enemy and then get cleared, is to put
himself into state of intoxication." And so
on to the end of the chapter. Now, all the
above shows lamentabe ignorance OF the
law on which they assume to dilate, to say
nothing stronger. The law under which the
jury acted was of very easy access, and care
for correctness of position should have sug-
gested that it be consulted. 1t is just such
ill-considered, reckless, dash-a-way style of
expressions that loses to the press its dignity
and influence. Here are papers making asser-
tions that are in direct conflict with the cearest
of all law, making assertions, too, in direct
conflict with the actual facts. James Currie
was positively not acquitted because he was
in state of intoxication at the time he killed
Porter. The law is expressly prohibitive
of any such acquittal. But he was acquitted
because he was shown to DO insane at that
time, and SO shown by four unimpeached,
expert physicians, well'known to the twelve
excellent citizens who composed the jury,
and rendered the verdict, and each and al OF
whom are supposed to have as much at heart
the welfare of the state and as tender regard
for their own consciences as is possessed by
their critics, And certainly they possessed
ampler qualifications then to decide on the
case at bar. One of the very witnesses
Mr.. Loughery, of the Marshall Herald who
now so bitterly complains, gave, we are ad
vised, the strongest of testimony to estab
lish case of delirium tremens by Currie
and this, with all else adduced, resulted in TIT
verdict which is now upon the country. ON
of the charges given by the judge is
"You are instructed that if you believe from
the evidence, that at the time of the killing
the defendant was laboring under deliriun
\ tremens, the remote cause of which was in
toxication, and by reason Of so laboring I'm
der delrium tremens the defendant did no
know what he was doing, or if he did know
what he was doing, did not know he WAS do
ing wrong, then you should acquit the de
PENDANT on the ground of insanity. You ar
the exclusive judges of the facts proven an
of the weight and credit that are due to tn
testimony of the witnesses, includin
the expert and non-expert witnesses.
This charge is strictly within the scope Q
the law, and the jury's duty was plain
they believed the testimony of the witnesse
and confded in the skill and integrity of tn
experts. Let us note the law: "When hon
icide is committed by man in state OF IL
toxication, that is held to be no excuse &c
the crime, for drunkenness is no excuse. b
persons laboring under a case OF deliriu'
tremens are not responsible for criminal &C
. committed while they are laboring under a
attack" "In delirium there is a disease {
the brain; in voluntary drunkenness there
| oc tho hrai in