San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-12-16
MRS. MAVERICK I .ASE.

To the San Antonio LIGHT.
An evening paper OF 18th inst. con-
tanned an editorial on the case of Mrs.
May brick, which is misleading and
unjust, although 1t is an elaborate
dedication of England. The entire
editorial shows, in each sentence, that
it was written by an Englishman in
San Antonio, with the chief liz tent of
lauding England and her judicial
system, rather than that of dong JUS
tice to Mrs. May brick.
Mrs. Maybrick was q native of Mo-
bile, Ala, and was grand. daughter
of Daniel Chandler a disting uis he'd
and wealthy lawyer of that city, and
If my memory is not at fault, great
niece Of Judge Jno. A. Campbell, at
Ole time q justice of the supren'a court
OF the United States. and q lawyer
of pre.eminent ability and of
national reputation. There were not
to be found in the United States two
families more noted for honesty and
respecta bility than those of Daniel
Chandler and John A. Campbell.
The mother of Mrs. May prick con-
tracted second marriage with 3
French nobleman.
Ii my memory is not at fault, the
testimony on which Mrs. Maybrick
was convicted of the murder of her
husband, was almost wholly circum-
stantial in Its character, and not at
all of the most forcible and conclusive
nature of circumstantial evidence. 1t
is unnecessary, in this connection, TO
say that it is hazardous to convict on
purely circumstantial testimony.
since, while the circumstances may,
on the plan Of juncta juvant, appear
to be overwhelming aud irresistible,
If but one link, that which connects
them with the accused, be wanting,
the entire chain of clrcum tances
falls to the ground, for lack of support
at the main end.
1t is always proper for al American
to write of q trial in a foreign nation,
with diffidence, because he usually
gets hardly more than an outline Of
the various particulars of such trial,
in the papers of his own country, but
he is as we'll fitted to express an
opinion about 1t as an Englisbmau
who was in the United Statos, when
Mrs. May bricks trial occurred. The,
charge of the judge who presided at
the trial OF Mrs. May brick was repre-,
scented to have been unusually severe,
| pointed and emphatic in it's summing
| up of the testimony against her. and
| to have amounted to an instruction to
the jury TO find her guilty. II this
| statement was true, the jury, no
doubt, followed the direction of the
| court rather than the dictatrs In re-
turning a verdict of guilty, as jurors
I in England, from all accounts, follow
| the direction of the courts.
This mode of trial practically de-
| prives juries of their legitimate func~
ton of judging Of the facts in case.
The American papers have con-
tanned accounts OF the symptoms of
insanity shown by the judge who
| tried Mrs. May bricK, and of the likli-
| hood OF his being removed therefor
This condition of diseased mind may
| have existed at the date of the triaf,
and may have occasiOned his charge
against Mrs. May brick.
The crown has an unlimited right
| of pardon, by the constitution OF Eng
land, though red tape may have add
| ed certain forms to the exercise of the
right such as that, the pardon must
| be advised by certain officers.
Where a person is convicted solely
| on circumstantial evidence and that
far from the strongest it is proper case
tor the exercise of executive cl, M
| ency.
The editorial In question is q stud
led aulogium on tho judicial system
of England rs being superior to our
system in the United States. 1t says
"cold facts, not sentiment, govern in
England" which is Tantamount to
saying, our judges and juries disre-
gard "cold facts" and blndly follow
"sen tlment."
The said editorials brimfull of An
glomania, and an under current of
depreciation of American systems aud
proceedings.
In the memorable case of Mcleod,
charged with burning the steamer
Caroline" England interposed in
his behalf, alphabetically and en-
ployed New York lawyers to defend
him IN the courts of that state.
There would, therefore, be no Inn
prOpriety in Mr.. BIaine's attempting
to have the trial of Mrs. May brick re-
vised by the British government.
A