Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-24
: THE ARNoLD-GARNEss CASE.


a more infamous attempt to blast reputa-
ton and wreck character, than developed
in the Arnold murder trial in San Fran
cisco, that came to such a just ending on
Friday.
We are accustomed to decry the extray-
agance of the modern sensational drama,
and to reproach the literature of the age
that gives birth to what we denominate
wildly improbable tales of plots and con-
spiracies to possess women, to abduct
maidens, to rob men of their money
through blackmail, and to crush hearts by
the most malignant and carefully plotted
libels; bat the lowest levels of imaginative
writing have never made record of fan
cied scheme of devilishness that will at all
compare with the malevolence of the plan
of Garness to possess himself of the wife
and purse Of Arnold. 1t may be that there
have been parallels to this scheme to
dragon the man who had done him no
wrong, but if so, they have not been ex-
posed to public gaze
Garness did not have even the poor excuse
of revenge to bolster the infamous hunting
down Of his victim. On the contrary,
Judas-like, he posed as the friend of
Arnold, and with amazing stimulation of
sympathy condoled with the unfortunate
man into whose heart he was pitilessly
driving the cruel steel.
That the wretch who concocted the plan
for the ruin of Arnolds household and
the covering of his children with mantle
of shame, should have sought certain Of the
press as avenues through which to more
directly strike his victim, is a cause for
humiliation to all engaged in journalism,
since the thought that suggested the use of
that medium must have been the outcome
of belief in the venality of newspapers,
in turn due to the disreputable course that
a portion of the press has pursued in recent
years.
1t is simply reflection of the common
Judgment of the people of the State to
say that the man Garness met fate of
his own invitation, and that no public
condemnation of Arnold will be uttered
for having taken the life of Garness. We
are not now considering the law which
forbids the citizen to take its Office into
his own hands or 10 accomplish the pun
ishment it provides may be administered
for the commission of ofienses. There can
be no possible excuse for the taking of
human life, except such as the law pro-
vides; society cannot afford to commit
into the hands of men the infiction of
penalties without fertilization of the de-
crees of its tribunals.
A Jury of the country has, however, by
its verdict, declared that Arnold is guilt
less of the crime of murder. 1t may be
assumed that the jurors based their find
ing upon the belief that Arnold, by reason
of the disturbed condition of his mind, was
irresponsible for his action, or that Gar
ness, conscious OF the business Of the re-
proach Of Arnold when he charged him
with the authorship of the malignant
anonymous circulars, attempted to draw
weapon or assumed an attitude as if he
would, and thus justified Arnold in firing
upon him-that is to say, the jury may
have accepted the defendants story of the
difficulty as true and have disbelieved the
dying statement of Garness. That the
jury, in view of the infamy of Garness
established beyond all question, might
well justify itself in rejecting the state
ment of the dying man and accepting that
of the defendant will not be seriously con-
tested.
But however this may be, and however
dangerous the doctrine of giving into in
dividual hands the Office of the law, it re-
mains that the acquittal of Arnold will be
accepted the world over as really based
upon the brutal and unparalleled assault
by Garness upon the domestic circle of
Arnold