The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1885-02-13
SHOULD THE LAW BE AMENDED 2

enactments clothed with stipula-
ted pains and penalties, and emu
merating specifically what constitutes
crime. and the order of procedure to
punish the one, and to vindicate the
other by submitting the same to the
sworn judgment of a jury for decision
after celebrating upon the evidence
produced. Legislative bodies are inde-
pendent Of, aud coordinate with the
other branches of government, and
probably the most important of all, as
they are the law making power, and
can only be held in check by the veto
power of the executive, or their enact
ments rendered null and void by judic.
ial decisions on constitutional grounds.
As all interests are represented in all
legislative bodies, individual influence
upon such bodies avails but little, ex-
cept by petitions numerously signed,
and setting forth local advantages de-
rived by certain local enactments not
antagonistic to the general laws, for
which special laws are passed with lit
tie or no opposition. A legislative
body is never deaf to the demands and
interest of their constituents. Laws are
therefore passed for the better protec-
ton against unjust encroachments from
various sources, and for the promotion
and welfare of local communities as
well as for the community at large. 1t
is also necessary that the laws should
change and vary with progress, times
and circumstances, and in accordance
with general public opinion.
From observation in legal and Grim
inal proceedings in courts of justice in
different states, there is a law relating
to homicide that deserves some notice
and to which we will here make allu-
sion, and which we think should either
be repealed, or amended, and specify
ing what constitutes justitiable homi
eide, if there be such thing as justifi-
able homicide. Hence the question, is
there justifable homicide ? We never
thought there was, except in case of
purely self-defense But past experl.
ence in public opinion, and the general
verdict of the people say there is.
Therefore we believe that such thing
exists. For illustration, Common
wealth VS.. James Mutt, tried for the
murder of Dukes and acquitted, and
Commonwealth of N. Y. VS.. Rawle
tried for the murder OF bis wifc's para
mour and acquitted, and all similar
cases in these parallel lines in which
juries usurp prerogatives not clearly in
cumbent upon them, seeming justifa-
bic, hence, an utter impossibiIity to
convict, the law and evidence to the
contrary notwithstanding. Since then
public opinion and juries coincide in
justifying such course, therefore let
juries be lawfully authorized to exer-
else the functions of the pardoning
power in the jnry box, as they do any
way in too many instances. And let
the struggle between oath bound obi
cations on the one hand, and conscience
and justice on the other cease. Ac-
cording to pubic opinion, and univer-
sal demand for the acquittal of the
above named culprits during their try
ing ordeal last winter, who, through
the most aggravating provocatiop, and
repeated aud most repulsive encroach-
ments upon the chastity, peace and
happiness in domestic affairs commit
ted homicide, the ends Of justice were
best subserved, by acquittal, and the
verdicts received with universal salts
faction and appreciation, and the jures
commended and highly applauded by
an appreciative public. How jury
under existing laws can be exonerated
from their sworn obligations when the
homicide is clearly proven, and ac-
knowledged by the accused, in render
ing a verdict for acquittal contrary to
law and testimony is point we fail to
see, except however, in case of actual
insanity, or self-defense. We never
believed that Mutt and Rawle should
have been punished, but always doubt
ed the right, or propriety of the juries
TO acquit them. We always believed
the result a just one and in accordance
with public sympathy and opinion, but
always failed to see how the ends of
justice could honorably be met in the
manner they were We do not wish
nor intend to censurc or criminate ju-
ries, but would plead for deliverance
from those unjust obligations in cases
of justifiable homicide. for the reason
that precedents are fully and firmly es-
tablished without any probability or
even a possibility, and perhaps without
an inclination to reverse similar future
decisions. At all events the precedents
in future will be cited and referred to
as examples worthy of imitation aud
as highly commendable in the past,
and through which the ends of justice
were best and most satisfactorily an
swered by the acquittal of the accused,
aud which will have their influence and
desired effect upon future juries. We
believe that universal opinion should
eliminate into law, or cease to be law
as the case may be. Hence juries are
tied and bound to law by solemn
oath, when, by common consent, their
better judgment must either be respect.
ed, or violated, or the oath in the r,n.
dering of their verdict. If there is
justifiable homicide we should like to
see the law amended If not, then let
juries be responsible for acting in bad
faith in the face of a violated and
broken law whose guardians they are.
BENTON.