Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-03-20
The Legal Distinction.

The Harrisburg Telegraph simply lies
when it says the INTELL1GENCER dep
recates the expression of public senti
ment in lawfully held public meetings..
What the eINTELL1GENCER said is this
aud it has said nothing inconsistent
with it:
Tho constitutional right OF citizens ol
any part of Pennsylvania I" in peaceable
manner to assemble together for theil
common good" and to discuss matte r;
affecting their common interest is not to
be gainsaid, and the people of Fayette
county who do not sympathize with the
conclusions reached by the Dukes jury
have as good a right to express their
dissatisfaction collectively as Individually.
Nevertheless, the INTELLIGENCERb be
lieves that the verdicts of such meetings
are just as apt to be erroneous as those
of the jury, and, as the New York San
has forcibly suggested, the fact that a
jury does not yield to nor agree with
public clamor is no proof that it's verdict
is not an honest and correct one. Aswe
have said, there is room for difference OF
opinion about the propriety of the yer.
dict in the Dukes case, and such a diff
ference exists between the conductors of
this journal, but it is based entirely on
what view is to be taken Of the evidence
: touching the immediate circumstances
OF the shooting and not on the character
and previous copapct of Dukes nor of the
womsRip 5fRtese. The simple question
for th ~ g Consider was whether or
not q &e E1s of the shooting the de-
fepdant tAA6reason to believe his life was
in -d8n2e and, acted in defense of it.
But the fallibility of the public judgment
is illustrated by the fact that in
mono of the expressions of it which
have been made is this considered, but
only the character of Dukes as liber-
tine and seducer. It is astonishing that
usually clear-headed men and fair
minded journals cannot make this
distinction. In the light of it Dukes
acquittal can no more fairly be con-
strued as license to libertines or a
proof of the failure of the jury system
than was the acquittal some time ago in
our own court of Miller, when it was the
general opinion that he deserved convic.
tion for some grade of homicide. And
the question of the defendants morals
entered no more into the legal adjudica-
tion of the one case than the other.
Or, to take another example furnished
by the tragedy in New York last night,
. brother kills his sisters seducer-if
such the paramour of married woman
may be called. His legal defense Is not
that he avenged her or his own dishonor
lii he did in any proper sense-but that
he shot a man who was hurting deadly
missiles at him. That would be the
proper view for jury to take of his act !;
the consideration uppermost in the pop
ular mind is, tha, he wiped out family
disgrace by killing the man responsible
for II. Had Conkling hurled the stat
uettes at Haverstick and the latter shot
and killed his assailant he would have
been just as justifable before the law,
but public clamor would have thirsted
fnr his blood. not because he was a legal
murderer, but because he was liber-
tine and had killed the man, even in
6o1f-defense, whose sister he had misled.
We readily appreciate how difficult it is
fnr the popular mind to make this proper
legal distinction, and how apt they are
70 b misunderstood and Indignantly
miszepCeeented who endeavor to make it.
Hut it b the business of q public jour-
nj to Try and make public opinion right,