Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1882-01-04

will Agree that II there u any fraud
ulent or other corrupt practice, On th
part of either Juror or counsel, 1t shoul
be unsparingly exposed and punished
and 1t u to brand any charge or insinus
ti0u Of such conduct In this case, b.
either the jurors or myself, - Q lie, tha
make this communication. II such
ease Is to be determined, not by tn
jury, but by the newspapers and tn
public, then thore sh0ald be some tim
and way fxed for 1t to be argued befor
that tribunal. But the wisdom Of tn
Law leaves the citizen charged will
crime to neither, and l will not say on
word In discussion Of the facts Of thi
case. That duty l discharged by ar
guing 1t before the jury. will not re
open it. ! have only to add that I thinl
tho verdict . just one, the only on
which could have been rendered by th'
jury under the evidence and under thei
0arhs.
Something, possibly much, has beer
said by editors and other individaali
as to the manner Of my discussion o
this case before the jury. am yer,
sorry that the nature Of the facts die
not permit a verbatim report Of what
did say. IT WAS said, subject to my be
ing reproved and stopped by the court
~ well a. TO the reply Of the very ablt
attorney. general. II l overstepped IL
the least, the proper limits of discus
sion, of either tho evidence or the wit
nesses, 1t was for him to take advan'
tage Of It, and TO deal with such
misconduct with tho most unsparing
severity. The manner In which he
has handled other counsel in other
cases does not leave 1t open TO the pre-
sumption that his speech was free from
such criticism because Of any regard
he might have for either me or my eli.
ent. In fact, however, his reply wa
filled with succession Of compliment
AIRY illusions, quite embarrassing "
me, and he made but . single objection
to any question put by me in cross "a
animation, throughout the entire trial,
and withdrew that as untenable before
| was half way through answering 1t.
1t seems TO have been forgotten by
many good people and sOme bad ones,
that the object Of trial is to get at the
truth Of the case, and where there Is
any conflict or discrepancy of evil
dence, to sift the false from the true.
In my argument l endeavored with
ali candor, and without fear, to discuss
the truthfulness Of the evidence, but |
dealt in abuse Of no one. II is q task
for which l have no inclination. 1t
seldom or never helps case, and | had
no temptation to use 1t in this case.
When my critics In this behalf know o
little law, and more Of the facts, and .
good deal more Of Chesterfield, they will
be better qualified to speak.
This case was not of my seeking, nor
was + employed by the prisoner. 1t
was the great reproach Of the English
law that 1t denied to the accused the
right TO be defended by counsel. Our
humane statute authorizes the court to
assign counsel to the defense where
prisoner Is too poor to employ profess
ionai assistance Under this statute |
was assigned to this duty BY the court.
About the prisoner or his case knew
nothing. had not even been in attend
ance at that term Of tho court, and the
was handed me at my Of
ice in Wilmington by the clerk OF the
peace. 1t was not open TO meto decline
the duty, except by being excused by
the Court upon grounds, which, in ny
case, did not exist, and which l could
not truthfully offer.
that my duty in such case was per-
functUry one; that was TO take some
quiet and iaconsequential part; just
enough To secure = conviction, with
dignity, but not TO acquit the prisoner
that was not TO make full defense
for him, such as l would be bound TO
10 If he had money enough to employ
me, or were of some other color, or we're
charged with some other crimo; that |
was rather to give away just enough Of
mis- rights safely to hang him; that
was concerned not in real trial under
he sanctions Of law, but was taking
he part Of the defendants counsel, in u
spectacular dramatic performance, to
end with the procession, slowly wind
N up at the gallows.
beg to be pardOned II took another
view OF my duty; IL 1 thought that I
'neu Ju'. .1; a. ~ nu1n y, 'iusny'' anu no
nofe, .s " 'iiis ,p.isonei' as 1, wou.u 70 ~
my o'nei oI.on'' 'ano I. .no ,eiuio' in
10 case NOV as ,;4i ,Gondehia'ioi, put as
40 alrples siauloa.ioi snu Jus',ho"-
i'h VI my ooai'o ~ 'n.e o"uso navo
10 apo'csies W ones lux W. Ut LUZ my
e',' VI lol ene ur!:: a..
An oh"iiiha'.on nv sho o"so oeiIy
iho s. .na' sneie were grave
iouu|s ,u, Va tno gun Vi Va" "oousou' o"y
isi. tna1 snero me'e iass aoc"e ~
,au !, hot oeen spIe W Wv "e. iaiseu
ne QUESTION oi INC iesai!.y M .4e Jury
lhu slter wares 1ook u 10 the supreme
Jour', IN part because !. was the priso-
ler r'sht 70 nave tnaI question ae.
ermlneu, ana IN part because l ieIt
nat AZ anosher trial, sitel some time
lau eiapteu, l wouiu 10 pe''er apie 10
'et q. the real iacts Oh the case. Inc
esuit mas Justineu me IN potn particu,
ars. Inc supreme oourt sostained
he appeal, ana time deveiopeu 1acts
Eat were Drought out on the second
riai, anu resulted IN the acquittal OF
ne prisoner. mi
vere with out bias either for or against