Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-25


There does not seem to have been any
extraordinary features in the murder case
that terminated yesterday. 1t is certain
that Emil pAuger was shot and killed.
Frank Devine was charged with having
committed the deed, and was put on trial
in accordance with the law OF the land.
There was no lack Of witnesses-wit-
nesses who We're present or in the imme-
diate vicinity of the scene of the homicide.
The evidence of most OF the Witnesses
was clear enough as far as it went, and
it went far enough to raise an extremely
strong suspicion that Devine's hand held
the pistol when the fatal shot was fired.
The same evidence substantially was
given at the inquest and before the grand
jury, and it was regarded as sufficient to
make it the duty Of these juries under
/ their oaths to charge Devine with murder.
Before a trial jury a greater degree Of
proof is required 10 Justify, or, rather,
! demand q verdict OF guilty. Evidence
must be considered and sifted and ana
lyzed by jurors, and weighed with de-
liberation under well known rules Of law.
These rules are founded on experience
and reason, and no good citizen would
for moment think of setting them aside
and attempting to supplant them with
methods dictated by passion and preju-
dice.
1t was peculiar feature of this case
that there was direct testimony on every
point except as to who fired the fatal shot.
No man swore that Devine shot Pfuger,
and it was left for the jury to say under
their oaths whether from the circum-
stances which were proved they were con-
WINGED beyond a reasonable doubt that
Devine was the man. 1t seems to have
been Just such a case that if the jury
had found the prisoner guilty the
verdict would have been sustained, and
yet there is not that degree of certainty
rs to the identity Of the guilty person
that justifes a condemnation of the jury
because a verdict of acquittal was rem
dered. No jury is infalible. Most prob
ably there were different degrees of doubt
among the members of the jury in this
case, but it was necessary that the opin-
ions of the jurors should be harmOnjzed,
if possible, and in this case it was posi-
bic.
1t was natural and proper for the per-
sOnal friends of the victim, as we'll as of
the accused, to take a very deep interest
in the trial. 1t is not proper, however,
tor any one to denounce the verdict as a
travesty on justice, or to seek to make a
class issue of the ques ton whether
Devine was guilty or not. Make jurors Of
the witnesses themselves. Not one of
them could on his oath say that Deyine
shot Phuger.
Perhaps several Of them believed that
he did, but they were not able to testify
to any fact that was sufficient to make it
certain that he did. 1t is not astonishing,
then, that the jury was not convinced be
You'd a reasonable and legal doubt that he
was guilty.
No good can come of agitatng this mat
tor any further; only harm can come Of it.
Divine has been acquitted. Such would
most likely have been the result of the
trial If the victim Of the tragedy had been
of aqy other nationality. Grant
that this was a case where it should have
been possible to positively identify the
guilty person. Who was to blame that it
was not done? Certainly not the Judge
or jury.
The victim had many friends, and
every one regrets that he was slain,
especially in the manner that he was.
The case, however, is at an end. The
law can go no further as to
Devine. If he is the man who
shot P1uger the issue must
be between himself and his God. The
lesson to be learned from this tragedy
cannot be overlooked. Had it not been
for the improper use of liquor. mid
night game of cards in a saloon and the
carrying of deadly weapon it would not
have been enacted.