The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1886-01-13
FORD AND MURPHY.
ALEXANDRIA. La, J
Jan. s, 'S6. I


Or Jan. s, 'S6.
10 Editor Democrat
r The question as to whether Pat Fol
is and John Murphy should or shouI
not be hung has been generally di
cussed by our people, though little hi
e been said through our local papers
o relation thereto. The issues presente
r under the circumstances are quite 81
S r'ous, and with your permission l sha
$ present what I deem to be the publ
0 sentiment of Rapides Parish in refer
, ence to them.
: The writer read .ery carefully TIL
9 report of eucl Jays proceedings during
the fire. trial, and was in the city dur
!, ing the last trial. No impartial mar
could read the history of the first o.
witness the second trial of these mer
and venture the statement that the,
had been given that fair and impartial
trial contemplated by our law and
guaranteed to every citizen. In con.
versation with gentleman from New
Orleans not long since, I was given to
understand that the country people had
no interest in this matter and that the
solution Of the questions involved
should be left to the people of New
Orleans alone. We cannot sanction
this doctrine. Our people have as
much interest in the execution of the
laws of Louisiana as the people of New
Orleans or any other place. Besides
this, if indammatory newspaper articles
and the heartless demands of the mob
can force conviction in our courts sit
ting at New Orleans, the same agen-
cles can procure the same effect 10 our
country courts.
In our opinion the first injustice done
in this case was the refusal to grant
change of venue. Every newspaper
was demanding the unqualified con-
viction of the prisoners not a man
could he found III the hotels, on the
streets or at the Exposition grounds
who dared to raise voice in their favor
AT the last trial it was rumored that
'her" was an organized body of men
outside tue Court, whose purpose i,
was to hang the accused and the iury
IN case of an aelnittaI. This preiu-
dice is now shown more emphaticallv,
if sncb thing he possible, since the
law has been vindicated, as some would
term it-outraged We call it, by the
demand under the threat of violence,
OF one of the leading ministers of the
gospel, sanctioned and endorsed Nv his
bishop, that these men shall he hung.
Their christian charity will be satisfied
with nothing less than an "eye for an
eye and tooth for a tooth" Their
forgiveness can only be purchased by
the blood of two men, 10y the broken
heart of good woman, and the dis
grace of Pat Ford's innocent little chill. |
dren. am, myself, member, how
ever unworthy, of tho Episcopal
Church, my wife is a communicate,
and my children attend that Sunday
School, hut l must confess that am
ashamed of the pastor who could so
forget his christianity and his calling
as to write such an article, and of the
Bishep who could sanction and en-.
dorse it. If these men were not emit.
tied to change of venue, then there
can be no case where an accused
would he entitled to it, and the law
regulating this matter should be re-
pealed, for it has certainly no meaning.
Again-The State contenaed that
Judge Ford was guilty of murder be
cause of a conspiracy formed, because
he aided ang assisted by counseling the
killing Of the deceased. 1t was never
by any one representing the
State that he was actually present at
he time Of tie homicide or did any of
he shooting. Then he was guilty of
murder or nothing. Notwithstanding
his the jury found him guilty of man
slaughter. Every lawyer knows that
here can be no manslaugbter unless
he party accused was present and did
he killing. Why did the jury find .
uch verdict Because they did not
|eeire to hang Judge Ferd under the
and did not dare to acquit :
IN, Tho Atforporu for >bo Jof,.l