Daily Republican., 1881-12-08
nr. MirxIn. parsiu the n cal Case.

demnation but the jackalls of the Bour
bon Press have even attacked Mr.. Hig
ins, Meals counsel, and denounced
him as unscrupulous, dishonest ant
everything that is vile in legal practice
Mr.. Higgins can afford TO look disdain'
fully upon the pygmies that hawk and
tear VI him. His conduct in the Neal
case only confirms his acknowledged
ability and standing as one ofthe ahlesl
lawyers of the day. He did nothing
more for Neal than he would have done
for any other client and he would have
been reoreant to his client and his ssworn
duty as lawyer, had he done less. Mr..
Higgins was not counsel for Neal OF
his own choice, but by appointment by
the Court for which the State, we be-
| !ieve, allows him the mnnitcent salary
of 81 67. We recol!ect well when Mr..
Higgins was appointed to take charge
of tie case and with what reluctance he
accepted. That Neal was black penni
less, without friends and charged with
disgusting, capital offence did not de-
ter Mr. Higgins from doing his duty by
him as much as If he had been q mil
lionaire. Up to that time negro had
never been put upon a State jury and
no black man charged with rape was
known to escape whether guilty or not.
Mr.. Higgins went before jury in
tluenced by Democratic partisan spirit
and feeling and lost his case. Nothing
daunted and soeing an opportunity to
compel the State to acknowledge the
constitutional amendments he appealed
to the United States Supreme Court on
the ground that discrimination was
shown in the selection of juries in Del
aware.
In the argum ent that followed before
the Supreme court, Mr.. Higgins was
opposed by States Attorney Gray who
was heavily tieeced by the State, but
Mr.. H. without any fee whatever ex-
cept the paltry s. 81 allowed by the
State without the hope Of any fee, and
having already spent about 500 Of his
own private funds was successful anu
had the verdict set aside, aud new
trial ordered. During this time two
different days were set for the execu
tion of Neal, until the verdict was set
aside by the Supreme Court.
Having gone thus far MIR, Higgins
did not desert his ellen, but at the pres
ent term of court he appeared for him
again in the last final conflict. In the
selection of bis jury Mr.. Higgins kept
within the rurview Of the law, and il
the jury chosen WAS inclined to be len
lent, that was not Mr.. Higgins fault. |
He did no more than other AT
torneys in like cases had done before
him. Mr.. Gray, Mr.. Bayard, Mr..
Spruance, Mr.. Bird, and all attorneys
who have had such clients have done
just what Mr., Higgins did in the selec- |
ton of jurors. Why then should Mr.. |
Higgins be blamed? Did no. Hon. Will
lard Salisbury present Chancellor OF
the State, exercise just the same kind
of discrimination in choosing a jury to
try DR.. West, of Dover, who brutally
murdered Cooch Turner respectable
but poor black man? But Mr.. Hig
gins needs no defence from US nor from
any other source. In the conduct of
this case he has revo utionized the old
Bourbon system of discrimination on
account of color in choosing jurymen,
and for the first time it has been de-
monstrated that it is possible that
black man charged with q capital Of
tense has a little chance 10 escape. The
enemies Of Mr.. Higgins may denounce
him to their hearts content but they
can never pluck from him laurels so
well earned, in opposition to old prac-
tees and the prejudices of the pco pie.