Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-03-15
asIcaster frrteuige,uer.
IunapAY EvSN'o, MARCH is. isss'
The Nuts and Dukes.

NJ. Dukes has been acquitted OF TIE
nurder Of Mr.. Mutt and the telegraph
M that the people Of Uniontown,
jhere the case was tried, do not approve
- verdict /; and some correspondent
fSxan Harrisburg even ventures the as
sertion that certain members OF the
IeeiSlature will vote to exclude MI:
Dukes from the seat in the lower House
to which be was elected, but which ne
he's not claimed pending the unsettled
charge against him. OF course, no SEN
silo,e legislator will think of refusing
NJ. Dukes his seat, when he comes 10
claim it acquitted OF the accu
nntion against him. The acquittal by
the Jury may be challenged by public
sentiment, but the decision of the issue
did not lie with the public, and If it did
the public is not less apt to be faillole
than the jury.
= There seems to be room for two opln
ions ,>.Nr. Dukes case; one OF the ea
itors Of the INTELL1GENCER, IN 1act'
agrees with the jury, while the other
svmpathizes with the public sentiment.
The difference is largely caused by the
different views taken of the evidence
Of the witnesses to the assault.
breckenridge, the nephew OF the
murdered man, in the evidence at the
trial, made the shooting by Dukes occur
deliberately, after the struggle was over
and while the victim was leaning ex-
hsusted on the mantelpiece. AT the
inouest Immediately after the occur
renee. his testimony was not thus strong
AGAINST the accused. If his testimony is
discredited, as it should be if he appears
to be vindictive in his feeling against
Dukes, the case of the commonwealth
breaks down.
It can hardly be questioned that the
conduct of the Mutt family at the trla
is fairly open to criticism. The wido"
appeared in the court room during the
trial: which was not evidence of any
delicacy of feeling on her part. The
nephew's testifying more strongly on the
trial than he did at the inquest, as We
have said, lays him open to suspicion
But worst Of all was the insistance by the
prosecution upon the presentation in evl
dence of the letters from Dukes to Mutt
which narrated course of conduct upor
the part of the daughter such as, If true
proved her to be most infamous. Hel
family alleged the accusations to he un
true, but they were not shown to be SO
and that they should be anxious to pub,
lish them to the world, without produc
ing their refutation along with them
seems to show wonderful lack of deli
cacy of feeling on the part of what il
left of the Mutt family, and gives op-
portunity at least for suspecting that the!
have been unduly animated by vindictiv'
feeling in the share they have taken il
the prosecution of Dukes.
If what they claim is true. that thu
daughter was libelled by Dukes in th
letter to the father, and that the latter
was deliberately shot by Dukes, then, o
course, the verdict of the jury was wrong
But if Dukes said what was true of tn
daughter, in his entirely private lette
to the father, and if the latter was shot
while assauiting Dukes, after he ha'
threatened to kill him on sight, thel
Dukes was justified in shooting him
On this issue the testimony and action Q
the Mutt family are against the prison
er naturally; and because it is Eaturall
30, it is to be cautiously received an
when evidence of great vindictivenes
is present, it becomes very doubtful
whether it is at all true.