New-York tribune., 1886-06-06
TIE My YEELL-PREELER CASE.

The conviction of Maxwell for the mur-
der of Preller at st. Louis tittingly ends
trial which has attracted wide atten-
ton, the whole of the circumstances having
been remarkable. An evil OdOr in hotel
caused search which disclosed the cause in a
human body, wedged into travelling trunk
which formed part of the baggage of recent
guest of the house. A paper was fastened to
the corpse intimating that the crime had been
committed by secret society. Suspicion, how
ever. pointed directly to Maxwell, who
had been the companion of the deceased
man. The police traced him across the CONT
nent to San Francisco, and thence on board
New-Zealand steamer. He was followed, ex-
tradited, and taken back. In his possession
many articles belonging to Preller were found.
He had done his best to cover his tracks from
the moment he left st. Louis, changing his
name assuming a foreign accent. and seeking
to disguise his identity in many ways. When
arrested he showed little feeling was cool and
cautious. purpose to dispute the identity of
the body found in the trunk was at first indi-
Gated by the defence, but the recognition had
been too complete and that line was subse-
quently abandoned.
The theory advanced finally was that Preller
had been suffering from a disease to relieve
which he had asked Maxwell, who had some
smatering of medical knowledge, to perform
slight operation; that Maxwell administered
chloroform to the deceased for this purpose,
and that the patient died under the influence of
the anBsthetic. Then Maxwell said he lost
his head, and fearing to be charged with
murder determined to conceal the body of his
friend and get away. SO he packed the corpse
in the trunk, coIded it, and appropriating the
dead mans money and effects, tpok train for
California On its face there was a certain
plausibility to this story. young and mex
perenced man. in a strange country, the laws
of which he did not know, might easily be
frightened on finding himself alone with a
corpse whose death, indirectly ct least, he was
responsible for. But apart from his statement,
all the acts of the defendant were more congru-
Gus with guilt than innocence. 1t was not
credible that an innocent man, even if tempted
to run away, would have rifled his dead friends
pockets and baggage first. On the contrary, the
larceny of Preller's money and goods strongly
suggested that cupidity had led to crime. Two
things brought out in the trial went to confirm
this second theory. A detective, smuggled (in
reprehensibly underhanded way into Max
wells prison, testified that the prisoner had
made statement to him had SAID that he first
sent Preler to sleep by hypodermic injecti On
of morphine, and then chloroformed him to
DEATH for the sake of his money. Perhaps this
| alleged confession, admittedly obtained by
| chicanery, would not have Outwei ghed the de
| fendant's statement on the witness stand. But
a far more damning piece of evidence was to
come.
The prosecution dsinterred the body of
Preller. 1t was found to be in remarkably
complete state of preservation. Careful medical
examination of the organs concerned was possi-
bic, and was made, with the result of proving
that Maxwclrs defence reste1 on falsehood
that the deceased had been affected by no such
disease as he defendant had alleged the exist
ence Of. After this disclosure it was clear that
| Maxwell could not be believed, and there re-
mained no reasonable ground for doubling that
he had committed deliberate and treacherous
murder; the murder of his benefac,Or and
friend. The character Of this criminal, rs re-
vealed by his demeanor and actions, is that OF
a gross egotist, destitute of moral sensbllity,
not wanting in intelligence, utterly men dacious,
and incapable probably of remOrse oil
| of any profound mental sensation not bearing
directly upon his own prospects and comfort
His effrontery during the first part of the tria
showed how lightly his hideous crime sat upon