The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-11-21
TRIAL BY PETITION,


his interference. On the merits of the
case it is sufficient to say that the pris-
oner was tried before one of the best juries
ever impaneled in Marion county, and be-
fore judge whose administration of his court
has been such as to win encomiums from al
classes, none more hearty than from those
who opposed his election. The murderer was
intelligently, skillfully and ably defended by
an attorney who said in his address to the jury
that Kerner was either entirely innocent of
what he was charged with or was guilty of
crime deserving death. The jury patiently
heard the case there was no undue excite
ment about the trial. There was but one
ballot taken on the question of guilt, and an
agreement as to the penalty was reached with
in very few minutes. Judge Norton, who
presided over the trial, so conducted it that
the Supreme Court could find no flaw in the
record upon which to order new hearing
but said in its opinion that, after careful
consideration Of all the points properly in
volved, and with due sense of the solemnity
of an act involving the life of fellow being,
it could find no just and legal reason
to disturb the Judgment of the lower court.
On petition for rehearing, the court had
the opportunity to again review the case, and
it adhered to its former opinion. 1t is the
judgment of Judge Norton that never was q
clearer case of crime made out in his court
that it was murder as brutal and cold blooded
as that of Merricks murder Of his wife, and
equally deserving of death. Under the due and
orderly processes of the law Andrew Knrner
was convicted and sentenced to death; but the
Governor of the State, under the stress of a
petition, organizes himself into higher court
of review, and by his ipse dixit interferes with
judgment, which the Supreme Court, though
twice appealed to, could not see their way
clear to do. For such conduct there
should be very imperative reasons. The
Governor feels the necessity of defending his
interposition, and the public is given brief,
elaborately prepared, setting forth the grounds
of the Communication.
In the first place, the statement shows that
the Governor assumed to himself the function
of judge, jury and counsel for the defense.
He is not content with looking into the pa
pers brought before him to see whether any
new fact is presented that would warrant his
interference with the legal processes, which
independent trial of the case. Indeed he
says the counsel for the defense
has not as fully developed certain points in
the testimony as he thinks proper and so he
supplies the deficiency. We submit that this
is a new and very dangerous function for
Governor. The communication is based on the
fact that the Governor does not believe the
guilt of the prisoner to be proven. He not
only argues himself into this belief, but he
goes further, and constructs a theory
of the crime which makes it impos-
sible for Kerner to have been the
murderer If the Governors reasoning is
worth the paper it is written on, he can not
hesitate moment in the issuance of full
pardon. 1t is perfectly absurd for the Gov
ernor to deliberately reason Knrner out of
responsibility for the MURDER and then say
that he is guilty enough to spend his
lifetime in the States prison. Such
conclusion is lame and impotent. He is either
guilty or innocent, and the Governor is too
good a lawyer not to know that if he is hear
ing the case de novo, assuming the functions
of judge and jury, and has created within his
own mind reasonable doubt of guilt the
prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. The Gov
ernor does not proceed in his paper upon the
theory that the penalty is not properly adj
justed to the crime but that the crime is not
legally proven at all. Korner himself made
he said, at l o'clock yesterday morning: ut
it not right that an innocent man should be
kept locked up"
The Governor is profoundly impressed with
the fact that the Supreme Court after affirm
ing the Judgment that condemned Koerner to
death, rushed down the back stairs to ask for
the communication It is remarkable that
this court, which can reverse judg-
ment against saloon keeper upon the
delicate splitting of hair south by south
west, could find no possible ground wherein
they could give a fellow-being another chance
for his life when they felt the penalty of
death to be UNDERSIGNED. The honorab!e
members of the Supreme Court solemnly CON
frming judgment of death and then flying
down the back staircase to ask the Governor
to interfere, do not present a dignifed specta