The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1889-10-29

stances ovsr which Ar. wallace bad NO
control caused the lamp 60 leave hrs grasp,
and take . sharp toward Mr..
Wallace, who, u seems, was wholly un.
prepared to be hit by pitt her. In this
event the twelve months imprisonment
added tn aud accentuatin9 Mr.. Wallacc's
grief over his wife's horrible death 10 =
masterpieces of cruelty and injustice. At
tempts Of this kind Il, compromise guilt
and Innocence by the imposition OF q light
sentence In IN cOnfcssion Of of
intellect, tn say the least. The only
point To no decided In whether Mr.. Wal
lace did throw the lainp-whether it's col
lision with the person OF Mrs. wallace
took place with his full knowledge and
consent. For IL il did. the act proves
murder In tho first degree. A lamp
filed with oil Possesses both bulk and
weight. Throwing IL at u specified object
with amy degree of accuracy. tliercfore, pre-
sppose cautioli. deliberations, u plan
of action carefully pr~econceivcd. A knife
may bc used ar n pistol fired in an in
Simultaneous fit of passion, the desire to
kill passing OF the next M sud-
denly us il came. But from tho neccssi-
ties of the case when N lighted lamp Ia
the weapon fired il shows on the part
of the hrcr the same slow, cool
calculation that is displayed by - poisoner
This case In, therefore, one OF murder Ina
In the first degree, or nothing 1t may he
act down as an axiom that he who fires n
lighted lamp at any object, animate ar In
animate. cxvnscts the destruction of that
object, swift and complete. Now examine
ing he defense, it's main. perhaps its
only, defect lies i'm Mr.. wallace's asser-
ton that he stuhbsd his toe while going
down stairs. This is not an unusual oc-
very difficult for the imagination To con-
ccive how - person can get his foot n
the required position to insure such a
calamity.in passing down. We are forced
tn one Of three conclusions: first, Mr..
Wallace m~isspoke himself, intending to
say, not that lie stubbed his toe, but that
his heel Slipped OH the ~oil-cloth; second,
Mr.. Wallace, instead OF proceeding I'm q
direct line, was going ziR-zag and his toes
got mixed up i'm the baluster; third, Mr..
Wallace lied. Before proceeding to a
consideration of these three hypothesis,
IL IL necessary tn call attention To one fact
that has an important bearing
at this stage Of the analysis. The
ing a successful trip either mp
stairs or down stairs, providing of course
that the subject is i'm full possession of his
faculties, arise almost invariably from
arknc or obscurity. Who has not
taken one too many steps when going up
stairs i'm the dark +? And who has not when
going down stairs under the same circum-
stances been arrested by the floor i'm q
peculiarly udde manner while Inc was
thinking that there were still more steps
to follow? But in this case, MIR. Wallace
was carrying n lighted lamp. Other things
being equal, there was then no occasion
for making u misstep. II he was in full
possession Of his faculties and n lighted
lamp, il il impossible to conceive OF his
stumbling his toe against the baluster; IL
he were proceeding with that deRres. of
gravity and carefulncss which the trans-
portation Of q lighted lamp imposes, his
heel could not have Slipped on the oil
cloth. Either, then. Mr.. Wallace was not
i'm hull possession Of his faculties, or Mr..
Wallace lied. Now va come To the one
vital question i'm the whole business, and
one for which we look i'm vain i'm the pub
lished proceedings before the court. II
Mr.. Wallace could prove that he came
home that evening with q large and Rlo-
rious Jag. his eccentric movement upon
the stairway would he clarified most beau
fully. As il in, analysis must take q rest.