The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-02
KENTUcKY's LATEST KILLING.


Congressman Thompson from the guilt of
having committed a hot-blooded crime.
That he really believed the truth of the
story told him by Miss Buckner, of the dis
grace of his wife and the presumed treachery
of friend, does not relieve him in any de-
gree, for it was his business to have investi-
gated the reports thoroughly, weighed them
with reasonable care, and to have acted only
with the most extreme caution in so grave a
matter as the deliberate killing of a man.
When the news of the shocking tragedy first
was made public, and with it the outlines OF
the reason which impelled Mr.. Thompson to
the deed of vengeance, it is certainly not too
much to say that in the minds of ninety-nine
out of one hundred there were developed at
once the most serious doubts, while there
was suggested in the very nature of the case
precisely the explanation which is now
given with the utmost emphasis, by not only
the friends Of the dead man but by Mrs.
Thompson as well. Miss Buckners past
history, with which Mr.. Thompson was
have warranted Mr.. Thompson in placing
unquestioning confidence in her story, while
as a lawyer, accustomed to sitting evidence
and judging of the weight and force of APP
parently discriminating circumstances, Mr..
Thompson might we'll have noticed discrep-
ancies and distortions and impossibilites
which stud the narrative thickly from be-
ginning to end On the contrary, Mrs.
Thompson's statement seems to be reasona-
bic, and the GOODNESS and precision wi
which Thompson acted precludes the idea of
the presence of that overpowering mental
torture which constitutes any grade of the
fanciful homicidal insanity which criminal
lawyers" have invented as the easiest means
whereby to acquit bloody-handed felons
Mr.. Thompson's speech to the court after
his deed is we'll described by Kentucky
paper which dares to tell the truth, as much
more of a special plea in defense of his deed
than natural cry of grief or horror" Mr.
Thompson had been separated from his wife
for more than five months She had visited
him in Washington and begged him to
see her for the sake of their daughter
but he would not. After his return
to his home in Harrodsburg he still declined
to see her, and to receive from her own lips
any statement or explanation of the Gin
cinnati episode she might have to offer. Mr.
Davis did not 'break up Thompson's
,aO- fhoth had l.
before because of the unfortunate fondness of
his wife for liquor and by Mr.. Thompson's
own act of separation and avowal that he
would never live with her again. By his
own volition he had abdicated the position
of her protector and defender, and
it is too late to plead the demolition of his
home and the dissertation of its
altar as either reason or excuse for the MUIR
der of Davis. 1t is evident from the tone of
the dispatches from Kentucky that Mr.
Thompson will not be indicted, and possibly
no judicial investigation will ever be had to
reveal, under the sanctity of legal form, the
real facts in this most distressful tragedy.
But, as we have said, the publications al
ready made, and made at once on the heels
of the killing as defense for the homi-
eide, are such as to create the gravest possible
doubtof the turpitude alleged against Davis
and to leave Mr.. Thompson under the shadow
of having taken fellow-beings life without
the consideration he would have given to the
most ordinary case in which he might have
been engaged as counsel. This may be
';chivalrous" and according to "the higher
law" but most people of cooler blood will
agree with the Louisville Commercial. which
says it would be better, in cases where the
higher law is to obtain, to have the facts
thoroughly sifted by the processes of the
lower law, and then, if the guilt of man
be established beyond question, of such ma
ture as that charged against Davis, no one
would say nay to Mr.. Thompson, or to any
other if he should execute sentence accord
ing to the higher law. But it is dangerous
to unite in one person the functions of Judge,
jury and executioner especially if the Office
of theiexecutioner is permitted to take pre-
cedence. Inan article of considerable length
reviewing the case, the Louisville CONNER
cial says:
mo jury on earth would find Davis and
Mrs. Thompson guilty OF the charge against
them on her miss Buckners] testimony
Much less can such a woman's statements be
just defense to man taking human life.
The sacred rights to life and honor must not
be permitted to depend on such a womans
word.
There is no sense in any sentimental gush
or slobber over this matter. 1t was with
Davis matter OF death. If Thompson does
not justify the deed it ought to be no less
with him. 1t is nonsense to talk about Sc
duction where either of the parties is mar