The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-03-02
Judge Hancoct's Assault on the U. s
Marshals.

MarshalS.
The correspondent Of the Express, at Aus
tin, gives the following account of Judge Han
cocks attack on the United States court Off
Gals, in the Rube Boyce case:
challenge your honor's recollection, that
| your experience at the bar, and on the bench,
does not remember a single case that has been
so perfectly and absolutely made out as this is.
| will say, probably the history of the juris
prudence of this country does not present an
| analogous case of outrage and monstrosity. l
do not know what is at the bottom Off l do
| not know how much secret service fund has
| been used, and do not know how many par
ties have been employed, about this prosecu-
| ton, going to New Mexico and returning. |
do not know how many vouchers have been
! sent forward that are pending now, when
probable action is suspended to see
whether this party be declared gull
y or not, in order to de-
| termine whether a requisition on that
fund will be paid. But, sir, we do know that
the marshal is in Washington. We do know
! that great credit has been claimed by the off,
Gals connected with this tribunal for their sue
cess in getting mp testimony to con-
vict this man. We do know that much money
has been spent, and that the government fire.
quenty refuses to pay unless conviction is ef
fectcd. do not say that such is the nature
in this case, but am warranted in saying that
there certainly must be some great motive, for
| I have rarely known human action of char
acter so hazardous and vengeful without some
powerful motive. | say, then, that the con-
duct OF the deputy marshal in this matter,
while characterize it as an outrage without a
parallel, is sufficient to set aside thousand
verdcts. would like to call your honor's at
tention to McFarland's affidavit. He does
not negative anything that he is charged with
He admits that all is implied; but, like the
prosecution, he takes exception to the precise
way in which it was stated.
| The speaker then went on in a most severe
manner to criticise the court for allowing Of
fcers, marshals, jurors, &C., to be manipulate
ed in his court. Commenting on the CONVEX
sation the deputy marshal had with the jury,
| he said perhaps the marshals were trying to
hurry up verdict SO they could draw their
pay He said he believed he was in a court
he would like to get out Of, and SAID that
nothing in the annals of jurisprudence and adj
mnist alton of criminal justice could equal
that affidavit of McFarland's acknowledging
that he was in regular conversation with the
Jurors about the case they were considering.
| He said that if Bob Mcfarland had no regard
for his sworn duty, what better instrument
| than he could I've found to coerce a Jury
into such verdict as would bring the pay for
which the officers were probably yearning,
even to the verge Of bankruptcy. Bob had
net denied refusing the jurors tobacco, with
the remark: "No, we will starve them into a
verdict" Mcfarland, the speaker said, had
intimated to Wells that they, the marshals,
would treat them, the jurors, like they treated
our prisoners at AnderSonville, and starve
them to death. Judge Hancock did not attri-
butte this language to Mcfarland, but used it
as fgurative. He dwelt on the fact that
women were allowed to go into the jury room
and talk over the verdict, and remarked that
while he believed his honor would have con-
suited the attorneys, he thought the deputy
marshal had taken the whole responsibility on
himself. He criticised in the severest manner
the whisky feature of the case.
Those who have preference for a smoke
out of fine .'meerschaum' will find irresst-