The Brookhaven leader., 1884-11-06
The Sullivan Verdict.
MEADvILLE Oct. 22nd, 1884.

EDITOR OF IsEADER.-ln your
issue Of tue 10Th inst. was a com
munication from this county over
the nom de plume OF dot in and
hy which an attempt was made to
give an account of the Sullivan trial.
Your correspondent not only SLAM
ders the jury that triel Sullivan,
but either through ignorance or a
willlul disposition to misrepresent
facts, conveys m impression that is
not supported by the Facts. lie says
IN substance:
lst. That the jury returned a
verdict that NO one but themselves
approved. In other words, that it
was condemned bv public sentiment
This statement is untrue. ! pro
Tess to know as much about the
public sentiment regarding that
trial as sanctimunious Dot and !
unhesitatingly say thatit was approx
ed by every intelligent AMI attentive
citizen who heard the trial from it's
commencement To it, close. True it
is. many good people believed that
the Sullivans were guilty, yet no
intelligent listener was so convinced
from the evidence aaduced, beyond
all reasonable doubt; but upon the
contrary, quite all were made to
doubt by the character Of the
testimony offered to sustain the
charge. in its conflict, its want of
Conference, and the manifest evidence
in quite a large portion of it-of its
manufacture and preparation to
serve purpose. The District
Attorney did not certainly regard
the verdict a. unwarranted by the
evidence, for he promptly on its
return dismissed the case against
Daniel Sullivan, and his conduct in
thus dismissing the case and the
Court in asserting to it cannot be
attributed to any other theory than
that both believed that the verdict
was warranted by the evidence or
the want of it. Yet "Dot,' in his
Ct guess its him over-righteous
ness and in ignorance perhaps Of
the full meaning of what he says,
arraigns both of these distinguished
gentlemen. If the Court, presided
over 10y so distinguished jurist as
Judge Chrisman and the interest
of the public represented by such an
able prosecutor as Hon. +. A. Nc
Lain, thus abandon the prosecution
of a person guilty of assassination
because the jury fails to convict on
evidence demanding conviction, then
have each done the public a
grievous wrong and merit the con
demnation of all law abiding men !;
but the people here will not believe
that these gentlemen who reposc
high in the public estimation, de-
serve the imputation cast upon them
by correspondent Dot" The jury
that tried Sullivan were as good and
responsible men as this county
affords abiding men, honest
men and contentious in the dis
charge Of all the duties of citizen
ship. Then to think OF this slur
cast upon them, Dot would not
care to utter in its full significance
in person and to the face of any
white member of that jury OF
honorable men. If he should he
would be dot" less. 1t is an
outrage that such insinuations
should he cast upon them as to
disregard the solemn oath taken.
End He says in substance that
the defense offered no evidence.
This is not true; and If it were it
would not necessarily follow that Il
convictiyn should have been had
because every one except perhaps
dot" knows every person charged
with crime is presumed to be inno-
cent until the contrary be shown
and established by creditable evil
dence. The defendant himself testi
fled and under the solemn sanction
Of an oath denied the commission
Of the crime with which he was
charged No witness testified that
he did commit it and the witnesses
who did testify to the most
material circumstances from which
The jury was asked to infer his
guilt, were shown to be biased
against Sullivan and some of them
were successfully impeached by the
evidence of the most reliable and
honorable men the country affords;
such men as Coffee. Caradine and
McCallum. OF Jefferson county;
Watson Of Lincoln county, and R. s.
Newman, of Franklin, each Of whom
either testified to facts which
demonstrated some Of the evidence
to be false, or to such contradictory
statements made by some OF the
Witnesses that rendered it extremely
doubtful whether it was proper to
attach credit to their statements or
not.
just such insinuations as cast by
dot" upon the jury that tried Suli-
van contributes in great measure
to lawlessness in encouraging the
already prevalent idea that ourjuries
are incompetent and corrupt.
ANOTHER Dor,