San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-12-19
MORE ABOUT MRS. MAVERICK

MORE A6OUI Mrs. MA btkISh.
Editor LIGHT.
My communication respecting an
article in an evening paper about
Mrs. Msybrick's case has ELECTED a
reply more remarkable for Ill man.
ners and audaclty of assertion than
for augmentation and decorum, but
doubtless this was perfectly natural.
The writer of said reply says his
first article was written by an Ameri-
can, but, for all that, he cannot truth
fully deny, but that he was born and
bred in England. He may have gone
through the naturalization mill, but
that does not al ways have the effect
of converting men into Americans.
1t is about as easy for an ethiopian
to change his skIn, or q leopard his
spots" as it is for an EDglisbman to
get rid of his peculiar cast OF mind
and his con viction that England is
the greatest nation on the globe, pos
sesses the best government, and that
her people are superior to all other
people.
The arrogance and insolence Of the
English IL shown In the recent de.
claration of the London Times, that
President Harrison's illusions to the
affair with Chilli is "mere rhetoric"
He says Americans evaded the
charge OF Mrs. May bricks being an
adulteress, but in this he is mistaken;
it was not attended to, because in q
trial for murder, evidence going to
prove she was guilty of adultery,
could not"be properly admitted. The
Indictment charged her with the
crime of murder, and not of adultery,
and consequently, only evidence as to
the crime charged, was admissible.
Women guilty of adultery are no
more given to the murder Of their
husbands than are men who are in
the same plight. given to the murder
of their wives. There is not one woman
or man out of q thousand who commit
adultery, who murder her husband
and his wife. The percentage of
thieves who commit murder is very
small, and most of the murders COM
mitted by thieves are prompted by
some idea of self-protection. He says
Americans Ignored the fact that Mrs.
May brick was an admitted but con-
tinued adultress, to which, it will
be sufficient answer to ask, who
admitted" this fact? Mrs. May
brick has never admitted it. An in
ference from her letters, that she was
an adulteress is no proof. The rule
scriptamanent is understood and act.
ed upon by men and women that
commit sdultery-they do net make
admission of this in their letters.
Now, while a hundred men might
draw one inference from parcel of
letters, another hundred would draw
an opposite inference. The various
Christian sects place different inter
pretatiOns on the scriptures. Mrs.
May bricks letters may have been i'm
proper-they may have contained ex.
pressions Of love, but they did moi ad
NIT adultery in SO many words, nor
do they prove that crime except in
feren TALLY. Her letters might be
sufficient to have entitled her hus-
band to divorce, but not to
convict her of the crime of adult
cry in criminal prosecution.
the recent case of Parnell and Mrs
O'Shea illustrates my point. Capt
O'Shea procured divorce upon evi
dence which was as strong and as
brick, yet Psrnell, in what may be
called his dying declaration, sol
EMMY declared that there had been
no criminal conversation between
Mrs. O'Shea and himself, but that for
the purpose of forcing Capt O'Shea
to obtain divorce they had contrived
to be detected in compromising situa-
tons. do not believe Parnell was
capable Of lying on any subject, least
Of all when he was conscious OF the
near approach of death.
Amer icanus does not believe Mrs
Maybric was an adulteress, ard be
denies she ever admitted she was.
Let the writer in the evening paper
give proof of his charge.
But even had she been guilty
of adultery, proof of it on her
trial for murder, was inadmissi.
BILE and was bound to preju-
dice a jury of men against her
even, although the judge and all the
jurors were guilty OF the like offence
The writers 10 question, says "there
are two eX-court reporters in San An
tonic who can prove the jury did not
blindly follow the instruction of the
Judge, but they can do nothing of the
kind. They may state their opinion
to that effect, but nothing short of
omnipOtence can tell what tookplace
in the minds or those jurors, or what
influenced them to render their YER
dict. No mortal can tell what goes on
in the mind of another, while con-
sidering any question of the guilt or
innocence of a fellow mortal.
The charge of the judge was decid-
eddy hostile to Mrs. Maybrick and
took the ground that the evidence
proved her guilt, and it is natural 1t
should have had controlling influ-
ence on the minds of the jurors in q
country, where iuries rarely render