National Republican., 1884-02-25

trials by jury. When, therefore, the attorney
general says that this verdict was contrary
TO the evidence he does 30 manifestly upon
the testimony as taken and reported by these
stenographers alone, because he was not
present at tho trial and he did not see tho
manner and bearing of tho witnesses while
testifying under direct and cross examination
before the jury, and, therefore, he was in no
position to say that the verdict was contrary
10 tho evidence.
Another rule OF law equally we'll settled is
that the jury are the sole and exclusive
judges Of the weight of the evidence and OF
what credit they will attach to the testimony
of any witness who has testified before them,
particularly whore there is a conflict and
evon whore there is no conflict. This power
and duty was performed and exercised by
the Jury in this case after it had been most
ably and elaborately argued upon
the evidence, not only by the
counsel employed by the government. Hon.
Samuel f. Rice, for many years chief justice
of tho supreme court of Alabama, is one of
tho most able, learned, eloquent and skillful
lawyers in the southern states, and under the
charge of tho court as to tho law. The jury
itself was far above the average in intelli-
gence and good character, u majority Of
whom were democrats. The foreman Of the
jury was Hon. W. r. Lacy, of Elmore
county, q prominent and distinguished citi-
zen, noted for his high character and moral
WORTH and who few years ago represented
Gilmore county in the legislature OF Alabama,
and has been a lifelong democrat. This jury
found no difficulty under such circumstances
in returning verdict Of acquittal.
We have stated briefly, and without elabora-
tion, the features of the evidence in this case,
and tho rules of law we here mentioned, not
for the purpose of entering into any contro-
versy about the matters to which they refer.
but simply as a matter about the truth of
which there can bo no controversy among all
intelligent and unbiased persons who wit
messed this trial. And in Wow Of these facts,
which are facts as we have stated beyond all
contest, and these rules of law that are
equally free from the dbmain OF controversy,
there can be no doubt that this paper Of the
attorney general does you, as well as the jury,
O gross injustice. The verdict Of the jury,
according to all the rules and presumptions
of law, was in accordance with the weight of
the evidence. We have no hesitation in say
ing that in point of fact it was in accordance
with the weight of the evidence.
The comments of tho attorney general as to
tho remaining indictments, which he directs
to be nolle pressed, in which he says that they
had been substantially tried in the cases in
which you had been acquitted, and therefore
you could not be triod upon them again, are
correct
1t is also true, as stated by
the attorney general in this paper,
that the fact that Robert Barber, clerk of the
district attorney, against whom grounds for
charges existed covering the same period as
those in reference to which you had been
indicted. and, indeed, much longer period,
was not prosecuted, did have tendency to
produce an impression upon your trial that
you had been selected to be prosecuted from
personal, partisan, and vindictiye motives, but
it is true that even this could not in our esti.
nation, and did not in our estimation have
! any controlling weight whatever with the
jury in finding verdict in your case, and
the jury were specially charged by the court
not to let it have any weight with them in
rendering their verdict in your case.
The stress laid by the attorney general
upon the fact that after this trial had been
concluded he had the testimony examined by
certain named agents Of the department, and
that they were of the opinion that the YER
dict was contrary to the evidence, and that
| he himself concurred with them in this view
| of the matter, suggests that whatever may be
their ability and impartiality and whatever
may be his ability and impartialty, the law
itself, as well as the experience of mankind
recognizes an established rule and doctrine
that q jury composed of twelve men who saw
the witnesses testify on the stand, had an op
portunity to consider the manner in which
| they testified, are far more competent to rem
der just verdict upon the evidence in th
case than can possibly be reached b,
the estimations and opinions of agent
of the government who have simply read the
evidence taken down by stenographers, anC
who were not pres ent at the trial.
w. l.. BRAGG,
DAVID CLoPToN,
GEORGE TURNER.