Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1882-01-04
.NR. HIGGINS DEFENCE.
oQERIEY CLARK ClINCMES HIS
DEHENCE.
AooAed ~ She Aisrspresentastsss
oe she De1osratie Press no
Aefeuas HE Aeslen In the
AeaI Case-Hls 0saaA.
Ea - mt.
Ror he kBFpsIIJAH.

Ror The kBFpbLIlAH.
Up to the present time have taker
10 notice of the criticism-nOt to say
abuse and slauder-heaped upon the
Jury and myself In the N cal case. sc
long as such statements came from IT.
responsible persons, who happened tc
b the editors Of newspapers, did not
deem their utterances worthy Of my at.
tentiOn. Moreover, until the adjourn
ment Of the court, my time was 80 ab'
soshed in the business of others pending
bsiore it, that no opportunity was LETT
mo to attend 70 any matter merely my
own. The charge that packed the
Jury having been repeated by others,
who ought to know better, take this
means Of publicly stating that such
charge Ii false-talse In the whole and
IN every particular.
With regard 70 the manner OF my
exercise of the prisoner = right Of chal.
lenRe, the subject Is one which does not
even admit of q difference Of opinion
among those qualified TO form one. The
law gives 70 man on trial Tor his life
the right 10 twenty peremptory chal-
lenges. 1t gives " the State none. 1t
gives 10 the prisoner the right to exclude
from the jury ali who have formed and
expressed any opinion rs to his guilt or
innocence. 1t denies to the State the
right to ask that question. 1t does give
the State the right to exclude from the
jury all who have con seientious scrup-
les against rendering o verdict of guilty
when the punishment Is death.
In this case there were forty.six jurors
present in the courtroom out of the
forty.eight on the regular panel. OF
these, twen;y-four under their oaths,
stated that they had formed and ex =.
pressed opinions as to the guilt or inno-
cencc Ut The prisoner, and we e excused
by the court fIom serving; three had
conscientious sctup,ts against finding a
verdict OF guilty where the punishment
Was deatL-thus excluding, for cause,
twenty.se seven Of the panel, and leaving
but nineteen from whom to select the
jury. OF these peremptorily challen-
ged twelve and accepted seven
Now, on behalf of the pri one, and
in the execution Of my trust TO sec that
he had tair trial, peremptorily
challenged those twelve men who upon
ths best investigation and judgment
could give 10 the subject, l thought
were most Liable to bias against the
prisoner. The law gave him the righE
thus to challenge twenty. 1t was his
right, not mine, but 1t was my duty
doubly my duty-both by my oath and
what owed TO man, for whom l
stood on trial for his lite, to see that
while there was challenge left, no
man went upon that jury who was bi s.
ed or had the bare possibility Of bias
against the prisoner.
To have failed thus 70 act, would
have been ON my part, base betrayal
of one whose rights the court had en-
trusted TO my charge, and would have
demanded that | be driven from the bar
had disgraced. No lawyer deserving
of the name, ever defended prisoner
on trial for his life at the bar OF this
county, OF of any county Of this State,
without exercising this right TO the ut.
terInost he could for the advantage of
his client; nor could any criticism
agains: its use come from any lawyer
without deserving Gerision and con-
tempt.
The fact that twenty-four jurors dis
qualified themselves ir,m serving, by
having formed and expressed opinions
AZ to the guilt or innocence of the pris
Oner, was ne fault of mine. 1t was in
part due to their having been former
trial and conviction, and In large part
also, to che unsparipg denunciations
heaped upon me tor having taken the
case by writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and to the
attempts OF all kinds, to which do
not choose now to more than allude, TO
make y political question out of the
case.
Enough TO know it served to sift out
from the jury the larger part Of those
Jurors who were Objectionable, because
of their possible bias against the prison.
er and exhausted but twelve Chal- |
lenges on the regular panel.
The packing jury bya lawyer | un-
.derstand to DO the procuring, the plac-
ing of men upon the jury of known
friendliness or bias to his side. In
this case it would have required my |
procuring or obtaining the selection Of
one or more OF the men who sat as ju-
rors on the trial. 1t is mapitestly i'm
possible for this 20 have been done, in
respect to the regular panel, who were
selected by the Levy Court, prOthono-
tary and clerk of the peace, before the
court commenced, and in the mode
appointed by law. The only Jurors, !
who could by any possibility have
been selected by me, were talesmen,
and that could have been done only by
the sheriff collusively selecting men
whom ] pointed out and had them
present in the court room for that pur-
pose.
Now any charge or insinuation, BY
whomsoover made, that the least know
ledge, beforehand, as to who the sher
id intended to call IA talesmen, or that
made any suggestion to him, or to
any Of his deputies, or other person,
either directly orindirectly, or causei
it done as to those he was going to call;
or that procured either directly or in.
directly, the presence of any person In
the court room for that purpose; or
that ever spoke to, or communicated
with the sheriff, or any of his deputies,
or had any other person TO speak TO or
communicate with him as to talesm Oh,
Is base and vile falsehood.
On the contrary, the fact is that
never spoke to the sheriff or any Of his
deputies, nor to any body else, about the
tai esmen who might be called; nor did
l in anyway, directly or indirectly, ap-
proach him, or get any other person to
approach him, or speak to him on the
subject. Indeed 1t was my expecta-
ton that the jury would be nearly, If
not quite filled out of the regular panel,
and that there would be no talesmen re-
.uuired. This charge also involves the
gravest injustice to the sheriff. If the
talesmen were corruptly called he was
an Indispensable party to the fraud. |
Now, how transparently clear Sheriff |
Clark Is in the matter will appear from
the facts.
If the men were picked out before.
hand, and their presence procured,
then they would have been in at
tendance in the court room while
the jury was being drawn, from the '
beginning until 1t was completed. But {
It happened thst after two jurors were
acoapted and sworn, from the regular {