St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-08-06

in the house by saying that she bought
them for use as cosmetics. For many
years she had used cosmetic prescribed
by DR.. GriggS, of Brooklyn, which con-
tanned arsenic. She had lost the pre-
ScriptiOn, and, wishing to make sub
stitute, had soaked the f1ypapers in
elderflOwer water and lavender water,
and had covered the vessel holding the
mixture with plate and towel to ex-
clude the air. Continuing, Mrs. May
brick said:
On the night of May g. after the nurse in
attendance upon my husband had given MIN
some meat Juice went and sat by his bed.
He complained of being very sick and de-
pressed, and implored me to give him pow
der. Earlier in the day he had made SIM
liar request, and had declined to administer
the powder. But that evening ! was over
wrought. terribly anxious and mlserably un-
happy. His distress unnerved me, and. as
he said the powder was harmless and could
put it in his food, consented to mix 1t with
some meat juice. which gave to him. After
taking it deceased fell asleep and appeared
better on awakening was not anxious to
administer the powder. Afterwards placed
the bottle containing the meat juice on the
washstand, where it remained until Michael
Maybrick, my brother-ln-law, took possession
of it. The day before my husband died
made full confession to him of fearful
wrong had done him. and received his for
giveness.
This statement caused a sensation in
the courtroom.
CELTS BLOCKIWHEEIS OF JUSTICE.
LONDON, Aug. 5.-One result of the
Maybrick murder trial in Liverpool is a
renewal of the agitation. rife here some
years ago, in favor of allowing prison.
ers to testify in their own behalf. Sir
Charles Russell's application to the
judge presiding at the trial for permlS-
sion to read a statement prepared by
the accused, and the judges consent
under certain restriction, given Satur-
day, served to start a heated discussion
as to the propriety of permitting such a
proceeding. But to-day the reading of
the prisoners statement adds interest
to the discussion and gives it point.
Those who urge the necessity OF reform
in this particular point out how abso-
luteIy essential the facts disclosed in
this case enabled the jury to gain clear
understanding of the case. and yet
how utterly impossible it would
have been to present the facts eX-
cept through the accused herself.
1t is little remarkable that though the
necessity for this reform in the law OF
evidence is all but universally admitted,
and in point of fact has been admitted
for years. no action was possible. This
is due to the political features of the
question. Whenever bill is introduced
with this reform in view, the Irish men,
bers promptly move the extension of
the principle to Ireland, and as this is
always refused, they not only vote
against the measure, but obstruct it.
The Irish members are determined that
until England is willing to allow Irish
political prisoners to testify in their own
behalf in ireland. England must be con-
tent with the clumsy and antiquated
rules of evidence she now applies. But
the present agitation looks formidable,
and it is not at all improbable that pub
lie opinion may compel the government
to adopt more rational methods in Eng
land even at the cost of like justice to
Ireland