The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1889-07-25
EDITOR DAWSON'S MURDERER.
A. JudiciOus Comment Oh the Verdict
of the Jury that Said He was
Not Guilty.
fStateSvillc Landmark

| (Statesvillc Landmark
We had purposed submitting few
feeble remarks this week upon the ac-
quittal at Charleston of the murderer
of Capt. F. w. Dawson, but the Bal
timore Sun has SO we'll said what
needed to be said that we merely copy
| its editorial So far as any outsider
can see by a careful reading Of the ev-
idence, this was about as brutal, cow
ardly and diabolical a murder as was
ever perpetrated. and the tact that
Dawson was at the time on the prem
iseS of the murderer does not in the
least palliate "the deep damnation Of
his taking off," for if a man may not
be visited on a matter of business at
his place of business, his office, where
then? We do not care to dwell upon
this outrageous verdict, but it is not
out of the way to observe that man
who was raised to respect the laws and
honor the courts runs against a good
many snags, and the editor who wants
to inspire public confidence in the ad-
ministration of Justice finds his hand
falter when he comes to reflect upon
this farce that we call "trial by Jury"
The Sun says:
The verdict of the jury in the
Charleston case is surprise to the out
side world, who have an idea that
murder is not commendable thing in
any community. Briefly stated, the
facts were as follows: Capt. Dawson
and his wife had in their employment
as nurse pretty Swiss girl, who left
her parents in Geneva and came over
with her employers. She was, there
fore, entirely dependent upon them for
proper protection, not only against
others, but against her own weaknesses
and follies. DR.. Mellow, married
man, living near by, saw proper to
make advances of an. improper char
acter to the girl, proposing an elope-
ment with her, among other devices tc
get possession of her. Capt. Dawson
heard of all this, and called at the of.
flee of Mellow to demand that he de
sist in his efforts to ruin this frlendles:
girl. According to McDow's account
Dawson was violent and rude, and few
people will wonder that he was 81
under the circumstances. A quarre
ensued, and Mellow alleges that Daw
son struck him with a cane, bu
the injury, If any, was slight and tn
cane little more than switch. 81
outraged was this would-be seducer
this betrayer of the honor of his owl
household, that any one should cal
him to task for such villainous con
duct that he drew pistol, "he habit
ually carried" we are told, and sho
Capt. Dawson in the back. HavinI
killed him, this citizen, "whose hom
had been invaded and outraged" a
, the lawyers said, instead of at ono
proclaiming what he had done an
: voluntarily placing himself under al
rest, as any man who had killed j
t self-detence would have done, tn
: worthy doctor tried to bury the bod
in the closet, and for three or fou
hours the crime was unknown, an
: only discovered then by the polio.
, Capt. Dawson was unarmed. Upo
this state of facts law-abiding citizer
, can see no'honest escape from one {
two verdicts. If DIR. Mellow shot h
E victim, not in self-defense, but as seem
most probable when his back W.
turned, his crime was murder in tt
: first degree. If he shot him upon sue
: den provocation and in hot blood in
| fight, it was manslaughter. The jul
: chose to believe Mellow, who testife
. with the gallows before him, and WI
e had already by his conduct shown h
: utter lack of manliness and honor, an
ignored the location of the wound an
: all the other powerful circumstances
t the case. They, therefore, found
: verdict of not guilty, and turned ii
e doctor loose to be "baptized in Il
It tears of his daughter whatever I'll
o may mean, as one of his counsel sa
e they should. Our South CaroliI
: friends have long enjoyed the reput
n ton of permitting the honor Of
e woman to be protected even to Il
e death Of the betrayer, and never han
y ing white man, whatever his often
y may be. For the former there is mu'
=. to be said; for the latter there is sou
,e excuse, perhaps, arising from the e
= ceptional circumstances surroundr
n them. But what shadow Of reason C
,e be given for allowing married libs
l. tine to dishonor his own househo
r and seek the ruin OF friendl'
re stranger, TO kill in cold or hot bio
it the man who sought to stop him, a
l. who had a moral right to stop hi
and yet go unwhipt of justice?