The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1885-06-06
State VS.. Hunter.

State VS.. Hunter.
In another column viii be found the testimony
IN the ease Of the State Of Maryland VS.. Robert Hun
Ter for the shooting Of Charles Clarke c0lOred on
Saturday night on q May we nave ~ a,H
invoked TO exhaust the regular panel by challenges
that talesmen might be summoned IN their stead
could he uroeflred To try the offence of white Dem
ocfat shooting coIored man. Verdict Of aequittal
as matter oil course doubtless upon the plea that
the eolored man shot himself AMertcdt sentiae.
The above article from the Sentinel, Of lasl
week, shows that the author is partisan at
all times, under all circumstances, and in all
things. He has SO much political venom that
he cannot understand that feeling of fairness
and impartiality that actuates people in
general, and he attacks a jury, every
one of whom is his superior in all that per
tains to Justice He actually impugns their
honor, for the inference to be drawn is that
they violated their oaths and gave verdict
on partisan grounds, regardless Of the evil
dence IF that be not so, why was attention
called to the testimony as published in anoth-
err column? Why was the fact noted that all
the jurors were Democrats z Why was it that
he said verdict of acquittal, as matter Of
course The paragraph, though short, is
malicious, and subversive of order and good
government. 1t is calculated to destroy con-
fidence in our courts, and to incite the blacks
against Democrats OF this latter there has
been too much already, and under their teach
ings it is surprising that the colored people
have not been guilty Of more acts Of impro-
priety and violence. For years, previous to
elections, the colored people in the churches
and schooihouses of this city and county, have
been urged to stand by the Republican party,
as they would be enslayed again in the event
Of Democratic success. The speakers knew
they we're practicing fraud and deception, and
this article on the Hunter case is another de-
ception to hold the colored voters steady,
now that the slavery dodge viii no longer
avail.
The evidence in the case was simply the
recollection Of sober white men-notall Dem,
ocrats, either-against the recollections of
young colored men, who, BY their own testi-
mony, had been drinking beer, whisky, pop
and gin, and could not have had reliable re-
collections of the occurrence. Besides, there
was no excitement about the affair, and moth
ing to arouse either resentment or to call for
unfair means of defense. To say that men
cannot give a fair Judgment, when no exciting
cause exists, because of political opinions, is
a SANDER. There was certainly no excite
ment over this shooting ARRAY, and no cause
for much public interest, and there was but
little, if any, except upon the part Of few
Republicans of the narrow partisan kind,
like the author of the paragraph in the Sen
tiael
In times of great pol itical excitement, and
in a case where politics play an important part,
jury Of one political party might be more OF
less influenced by their partisanship. Bul
there could have been none in the Hunter
trial, especially with the jury that tried him.
If a jury were made up of men like the au-
thor of the Sentinel article, he no doubt would
have been adiudged guilty because he was a
Democrat.
1t does not come with good grace from
Carroll county Republican to talk of packed
iuries. II has not been so long ago that no
Democrat was found on either grand or petit
Jury in Carroll IF there be anything unfair
in such proceeding, that party set the exam
pie. 1t was in times, too, of great and con-
tinued excitement, aud in time that partisan
inries might count, and as believed by many,
did count.
Those times have passed and we are willing
to let them 90 unnoticed, but Republicans
cannot expect the Democratic party journal
to keep silent when their own organ recalls
them by. senseless charges.
Mr.. Hunter was tried according to law.
Their was no partially exhibited by the Court,
and the States Attorney prosecuted the ac-
cased with his usual vigor. No man will
even insinuate that States Attorney Henning
ever knew politics, religion, race or social
position, wheE IN the dischage of his duty.
The counsel for defense used all rights and
privileges, under the law, in behalf OF the ac-
cnsed. which was his duty to his client, be-
lieying, as he did, that he was not guilty as
charged. In selecting jurors, the state and
defense used their best judgment. Below we
give the names of the jurors, and the public
can Judge whether they are men who would
violate their oaths, or be influenced in their
verdict by craftsmanship:
Jacob Sharrets, of Middleburg district,
foreman; Abram N Hess, Taneytown; Moses
seabrook, Middleburg; David A. Owings,
Westminster John H. Jordan, Uniontown;
William I. Devries, Freedom; George W.
Matthews, Westminster; Adam Lncabaugh,
Manchester; Jeremiah Yingling, David Fow-
BILE. John C. Frizell, and Richard Manning,
all Of the city Of Westminster.
tits quite probable, too, that some OF the
Jurors did not know the political afiliation of
Hunter. He is not politically active.