Omaha daily bee., 1889-04-09


| She was dragged therefrom by a man,
| whether Mr.. King or not we do not know,
and would not charge, God knows, any
thing against him that we do not know, be-
not know: so ! say have nothing to say
| against her Poor. raclcd soul. After this,
then, and at this very time, although she
| knew nothing about It, no one told her any.
| thing about it, although Mr.. King had heard
about it-after this she writes this letter. l
| don't know what the date OF this Is; it bears
no date, but probably not great while be-
| fore this last expression. (rhe last letter
| was then read and commented on.)
Now, gentlemen, this is tho last letter
| they gave us; this is the last chapter we
have of the life of this poor child, except as
| 1t is given by evidence, until we get down to
| the transaction'on the 18th OF November.
Now, we find her again, then, finally making
this settlement, heartbroken and alone;
again she is cast upon the world, and she
tells MIR. Adams, and believe Mr. Adams
is a kind hearted man-she tells MIR. Adams
| that IL Harry is taken from her, all is gone
and she will place herself in convent. Her
| sister is there; her little brother is to be
taken care Of; heartbroken now and alone,
| sne is cast upon the cold charities of the
world. Now. gentlemen, bear in mind this,
| that all she has sacrificed hero is for the
| sake of mother, father, and Harry
to the extent of his comfort
but not TO the extent of allowing him to
marry another woman. Because it was often
| talked about ut that time that some proceed
| ing or other for divorce would be taken, and
| while they did not want n display about it,
| she told us that she took Harry to her
mothers house and crossed her humble
threshold, and there introduced him, as he
| was, as her husband. MY mother" says
| She "has always believed it, believes itnow;
| want evidence to show that | have not de-
ceved her; L want it known that
Am His Wife
| and there must be some proceedings for di-
tnlfpn. If there is IN a local
| separation let some proceedings for divorce
be taken.n
Now, gentlemen, want to say this right
| here before we go any further in regard to
| that, that have no doubt in the world that
| hope still rested in ner heart, that it had not
| flown, that it had not departed. l have no
| doubt in the world that where her lifc was
and where her devotion was, that there also
| was hope, and tnat Notwithstanding this sep
| aration, Harry and she would come together
| again, and that she could turn over that
| money that she had received to help HIM and
| to aid him. l have no doubt at all. But we
| will let that pass now, gentlemen of the jury;
| leave this branch of the case | have shown
| you her life for three years; | have shown
| you that there Is not in that life from the be-
| ginning to the end an element of malice; |
| have shown you that there is not an element
| of crime, there is not an element of revenge.
| l have shown you that that life consists of u
| continued stream of devoted love, sef-sacri-
| fcIng, humollng herself. bowling herself, to
| help her lord and muster
! This is the history OF the woman; this is
| the history of this poor defendant. When
| beaten about the head and beaten about the
| body, and Knocked senseless on the street.
| she still cllngs to him, and tells him II will
| be your friend; | love you stiil.h | say, then,
| when all this is done, we enter upon the final
| scene of this transformation with n woman
| free from malice, free from revenge. pure in
thought, pure in act. Tell me If such
| woman is made in II day. Crime fingers
| long. a murderer lS not murderer IN uuy,
| Days and years
Build Up the Crime.
| You are, then, to say, gentlemen of the jury,
| taat from the pedestal upon which this de.
| fendant is placed by her record, Il pedestal
| OF virtue. of honor, of self-sacritice,
| of love, of devotion, that she leaps
| from tnat to the pedestal of murder
| i'll one day. Is that human nature! Is that
| 50? Is there any other way to account for
| this! Do you believe that that is done with
F! reason acting: do you bell We that that is
| done with will power in operation! You can
| not, and if you are honest men you will not;
! and'I know YOU are.
| Now, then, with this bright light, we will
| proceed to another feature of this case. We
are told that self defense and the defense of
insanity are inconsistent in the same case.
| Now. let us see. If it is self defense it is not
| insanity; that is true. If it is insanity it is
not self detcnse; that is true. But it may be
one or the other. Now, let us see: do not
| care, it is not necessary, nor would | ques-
| ton as to whether or not this defendant
| fired the shot that entered the body of King
| and caused his death. Let US concede now,
| for the purpose of our argument that it was
the bullet from the pistol in the hand of this
| defendant that entered the body of
| Henry King and caused his death. Now
| IL is contended by the state that
| when she fired that shot she
| knew what she was doing: she was perfectly
| sane; that it was the act of malice premedi-
tation, and elaboration. That is what they
! hoy hn nor of
! malice. premeditaton, deliberations; that
when she raised the pistol ana fired that
| shot she knew what she was doing. | con-
| cedc that for my first defense. concede for
| the purpose of the first defense that she
knew just what she was doing, as they claim
| sne did II she knew what she was doing,
| then / say that this evidence shows case as
strong as any woman could ever plead. If
she did not know what she was doing, then
| as matter of course, it is not crime and
she IS not responsible. 1t is PLAIN now that.
if she knew what she was doing when she
| raised that pistol and tired-I say she had
right to fire it, and her reason was properly
exercised If she did not know what she
was doing, then she is
Not RESPONSIBLE Fer the Act.
Now, for the first proposition, let us con-
cede she knew what she was doing. The
revolution in criminal law for the past years
has been probably as great as in any other
department Of The law: more probably than
in the civil department anywhere. There
was a time when it was said if a person
knows the difference between right and
wrong he is not insane. And there used TO
be number after number of judicial murders
committed on that theory, that if a man
knew the difference between right and
wrong that then he was sane enough TO be
responsible for his act. Why, this matter
came to be discussed, this matter came to be
investigated, and it was only necessary to
say, go TO your hospital, and unless there is
perfect idiocy, and there is not one such case
| in ten thousaDd-unless there Is absence of
mind entirely, there is not a soul IN that
| hospital but what knows the difference
| between right and wrong. Not one. You
deprive any one of those men of their break
| fast IN the morning, and they know they are
| wronged. You deprive any one of them of
| their dinner, aud they know they are
wrongcd They disobey an order of the
| warden, and they know they are committing
wrong and those men are calculating from
| day to day and from month to month to per-
| petrate an act of murder and accomplish IT.
| So say in regard to this, the courts finally
came to the conclusion that they had
| been guilty OF judicial murder, because on
| the theory of right and wrong-the knowl'
| edge OF right and Wrong-you could execute
| every inmate in the asylum OF this state If
murder was committed
We also used 10 have a doctrine of self
| defense taught by the old Mohawks of the
| common law, that if a man was assaulted he