Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1890-03-13
STAIN NANDCRONWBLL
hn md listafly Opinion w Il S1guld
Iot b GPaltod.
The Pytsonego Must Paw TIE Peuslty
ol 3hsf1 3sgriblo Deed.

The PTisoosrs Must Paw the Psnals
II ol 1Ask Terrible Desd.
Potter }. On the evening Of Februas
22d, 1878, John W. Barron, cashier Of th
Dexter SAvines Bank. vas found With
the vault Of the bank, wounded, gagged
handcuded, unconscious and in . dying cor
dition. A few h0urs later death resulted
Ten years from that time the respondent,
were indicted, tried and convicted Of tn
murder Of this man. Thereupon . geners
motion to Get aside the verdict vas filed, an
also . motion for new trial on the groun
Of newly discovered evidence. These mo
tions were addressed 70 and heard BY th,
Chief Justice Of this court Who presided q
the trial. The motions having been denied
an appeal vas taken to this court. and tn,
question before 10 relates to the correct
ness Of his decision in denying these mo
tions for . new trial. Our determination
must be based upon the record which hai
been presented before us, and which il
very voluminous, comprising about twelve
hundred printed pages Of testimony from
l
| Upon the combined evidence thus present
ed does the guilt or innocence Of the re.
| sp0ndents depend. With the utmost care
and diligent research in the investigation
OF this case have We examined this vas,
volume Of testimony, and the conclusion
to which this court, BY unanimous opin-
ion, has ultimately arrived. 10, that the
decision Of the court below. denying these
motions. was correct.
While 1t 10 practically impossible within
the limits Of this opinion to give any analy-
sis. or even an extended summary, of the
evidence introduced before the Jury and
upon the motions. it may be proper in this
connection to say that in . very lengthy
and elaborate opinion by the learned Jus
tice who presided at the trial, and before
whom the motions we're Afterwards heard,
. very the rough, complete and exhaustive
analysis Of the evidence has been furnished
a. the basis upon which his denial of the
motions was founded; and that opinion
will undoubtedly be filed in the proceed
ings.
An examination Of the record discloses
two classes Of evidence relied on by the
government a. fastening the guilt upon
these respondents. These classes consist
Of the alleged confessions of both respond
ents in relation to the crime-and their
Identification and presence within the
State and in the immediate vicinity of
these operations on two previous occa-
sions the year before, and also their iden.
tiication and presence in Dexter and in
and about the bank building on the day
on which the murder was committed.
These two classes Of evidence, while not in
any sense dependent upon each other, are
nevertheless in . most remark able and
striking degree in all their essential partic-
ulars entirely consistent and In harmony
with each other.
The story - told by Charles F. Stain of
his fathers confessions to him, and ~ to
what occurred on two former trips Of ex-
ploration from Massachusetts into Maine
in 1877. was the starting point from which
the government was able to develop, by
testimony entirely independent of this wit
ness, chain Of evidence Of such strength
A. left no doubt in the minds Of the Jury of
the commission of the crime charged and
Of the guilt Of these respondents. That
evidence when discovered stands upon its
own merit inasmuch a. il 10 entirely dis
connected with the testimony Of young
Stain. which was but the key which un-
locked the chambers Of this crime and
made plain all the evidence of these mems
guilt. However much of truth or fiction
the disclosures Of this man may be sup
posed to contain, there 10 certainly one
fact which stands out transcedently above
all others, and that 10, that these disclos-
ures have led to the discovery of most i'm
portant evidence against the accused which
would never have been dit covered without
his aid. While large part of the testi
mony discloses evidences whose only object
and purpose is to impeach this witness, it
10 most striking and significant phase of
the governments case, that it 10 in no
sense dependent upon the credibility of
this witness. The governments case does
not rest upon the testimony Of Charles F.
Stain alone. 1t 10 not whether the story
Of this man, standing alone, 10 to be fully
believed or not. The conviction of these
men was not based upon that. Yet one Of
the most forcible demonstrations Of the
substantial truth Of the testimony of
young Stain, in all the material elements
Of the case, 10, that it 10 80 completely in
harmony with % many independent facts
and circumstances, and the testimony Of 80
many independent and distinct witnesses.
Afarmations and denials by word Of mouth
may be fabricated; but circumstances and
the happening Of facts cannot. The latter
10 the crucible wherein to test the truth or
falsity of the former. The corroborations
Of this witness in his accusation against the
prisoners are not few or accidental, but
many and various, each irparting and re-
ceiving strength from the other. 1t 10 not
within the proper scope Of this opinion to
set forth in detail these numerous corrober-
ations which are disclosed by the vast
volume Of other testimony which was intro
duced both to support and impeach the
accusation made by this witness. II 10
sufficient to say that the record discloses
these corroborations. They exist in refer
ence to many matters, the evidence of
vhish could not possibly have been antici.
pated by him, il his story we're fabrication
His story was old,-and in all its esse ntials
the came As repeated from the witness stand
long before he knew. 90 far - can be
perceived, that single witness or . single
circumstance would be brought in confr-
nation Of his accusation. A. remarked by
the Chief Justice in the opinion to which
we have referred, The story 10 full Of
details connected with each other, and Of
collateral facts, many Of them Of minor
consequence, consistent with each other,
which naked falsehood would hardly attemp,
to include in it manufacture. Truth veaves
without effort finer web than falsehood
can with all its Art and cunniag."
With the story Of young Stain ~ the
starting point, the government next sough,
corroborative information from John F
Harvey, who for years was an associate of
the respondents, but who for . long time
bad lived apart from them. He 10 . bro
ther-in-lav Of the defendant Stain, and tes-
tiled to statemen and eonfession ns made
to him by Cromwell ave years before the
trial aud before the story Of Charles r
Stain. This information vss not volun.
teered on his part, nor did he confess any
knowledge of the affair until q second in.
terview made on behalf Of the government
in June or July 1887. This witness Is alst
supported in the details and circumstance,
[of this confidential admission conided b,
Cromwell to him in the fall of 1882, ant
! by the subsequent statements Of Cromwell
| to another government witness tendinf
strongly towards confession, and vhicl
| Cromwell upon the stand found it very diff
ncult to deny. Very many Of the detail
given in the story Of young Stain in rela
ton to circumstances and transactions prio
to this tragedy are also given By Harvey
With little chance Of confederation betveel
them.
But how is this testimony and the cas-
Of the government met on the part Of tn
defense! 1t 10 not one Of confession an
avoidance.-nos one which admits ths
there had been excursions from Meddel
into Maine prior to 1878, in which youn
Stain bad accompanied these responder,
for proper and legitimate purposes, bu
that the father never confessed that he Va
in Dexter in February, ls7s.-or tha
CPomv vell althouHh ndmifsing other cyime