The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-11
THE KNAPP CASE.
The La Conner Editors Version OF the
Recent Alaska Sensation.
Ia Conner Mail.

La Conner Mail.
In naturalization, too long delayed, the edi-
tor desires to say q word concerning certain
charges made in the Seattle Telegraph of Sep
TENDER z, 1891, and subsequently by othor
papers of mCIc or less prominence, and which
we emphatically assert to be totally false and
grounded in malice. Said charges were origin
ally preferred by one John g. Brady, ex-
missionsry and ex-United States commissioner.
The further circulation of the aforesaid charges
was caused by on Frank F. Myers, editor OF the
Juneau Af-in1 Record. who had sought and
failed to secure the Involvement OF the governor
for the Office of deputy collector of customs at
Juneau.
The following copy of a judgment by Hon. r.
c. Rogers United States commissioner, in the
aforementioned cause, explains itself:
In commissioner court-The United States VS..
Geo.ge E. Knapp.
In an opinion read at the last sitting of the
court deciding . motion for continuance, in
which was involved the question of the compe-
teney of the wife of the defendant as q witness,
part of tine prosecution to prove either posi-
tive injury or threats OF injury to the person Of
Mrs. George E. Knapp That declaration was
substantially decision OF the direct issue OF
defense asking that the private prosecutor shall
be charged with the costs, as provided by Sec
tons 90 and 93 chapter X. of the General Laws
of Oregon, renders it essential that should
make q more extended and critical examination
OF the case
com plaint duly verified, has been filed in
this court in which the defendant is charged
with the airline of grossly injuring the person OF
his vile, disturbing the public peace, and
openly outraging public decency BY his cruel
and inhuman treatment of her-charges of q
grave character, affecting his good name and re-
pute which, if true. would justify the court in
imposing the maximum penalties of the law
provided in such cases, and which would also
properly degrade him in the esteem of the COM
munity. But ii not true, it is a serious rsspon-
sibility assumed by the private prosecutor both
to law and society.
The prosecution introduced eight witnesses
in all, which number included the two ply
sicisns who had attended Mrs. George E. Knapp,
two close friends OF the family acting in the ca
pacity of voluntary nurses, the father, tho two
sisters and the brother-in-law OF the defendants
wife, the last being the accuser. On the part OF
one or more of those relatives there was dis
closed in their examination much prejudice
against the defendant, but whether deserved or
undeserved it Is not necessary now to inquire.
one word has been uttered on the trial, not one
circumstance shown, to justify the charges
made, nothing to give color to the accusation OF
injury to the person OF Mrs. Knapp, nor threat
OF injury disturbance of the public peace or
outraying public deceney.
The complaint was made by q person who
enjoys the reputation of intelligence, who has
filled here a public office to which was at
tached important judicial functions, and who
has reached the age when gravity usually takes
the place of impulse, and reason exercises con-
troll over passion.
The charge was made and filed on the 29th
day OF July, and hearing set for August g. an
interval broad enough to allow full reflection
upon the wisdom or unwisdom of the accusa-
ton preferred And yet the private prosecutor,
when called as a witness by the United States,
had to admit ON the cross-examination that
gross violence to the person of Mrs.
Knapp which he himself had complained Of
under the solemn forms of law. As he stood
the sponsor of those who claimed to have that
knowledge, but which they denied on examina-
ton. he must take the responsibility OF that vi
carious relation in addition to his own.
These are indisputable facts compendiously
stated, and they naturally lead US to the motion
which asks that the court shall adiudge the
prosecution to have been ,.malicious and with
entered upon the record OF the proceedings in
said action. The effect of that entry is that
Judgment must be given against the private
prosecutor Tor the costs and disbursements.
The Oregon code says "the term malice and
'maliciously' when so employed import wish
to veI, annoy or iniure another person, estab-
lished either by proof or presumption of law
But the supreme court of Oregon in Gee vs. Gull
yer, vol 1S, page $685. gives fuller aud clearer
definition of malice. malice In the enlarged
sense and meaning of the law is not restricted
only to anger hatred and revenge, but includes
every. other unlawful and uniust.iable mo-
tive"
Again, "while it is true that express or actual
malice refers or relates to the mental state or
purpose OF the party who committed the act,
and its existence mus be proved, the law does
state or purpose, but the character OF
the act itse.f, with all its surrounding
facts and circumstance, may be inquired
into Tor the purpose OF aseertaining the motive
or purpose which influenced the mind of the
party in committing the act. and if upon full
consideration of these. that motive Is found to
be improper and unjustifiabe, the law author
lies the jury 10 find it was malicious"
repeat, that the law says If it appears to the
magistrate that the prosecution was malicious,
or without probable cause, he must make the
entry in the record of the proceedings already
spoken of.
Putting aside the question OF whether or not
the proceedings disclose the presence OF malice
as defined by the highest court of Oregon
do thsy-the procesdings-show probable
cause to support the making Of that
formal accusation? What sanction has been
given 20 the serious charges made by any of the
evidence adduced at this trialf The prosecu-
ton was allowed the widest range by the court
and at times the limitations governing the rules
OF evidence were oyerthrown, but there has not
been one seintlia of evidence given showing
that the defendant was guilty CT gross injury to
the person OF his wife, disturbing the public
peace and outraging public deoency. The scin-
tilla juris or spark OF law or right has not been
seen in any of the testimony introduced by the
plaintiff
cannot under the foregoing showing saddle
the government with a bill OF costs, and besides
il is my manifest duty by all proper methods to
/ repress suits in which probable cause does no.
appear, aud means TO that end is to charge the
complainant with the costs.
/ adiudCe that the defendant is not guilty.
that he be released from persona al reeognizance
be entered against the private prosecutor Tor the
costs and disbursements OF the action.
lsigned K. c. ROGERS,
United States Com missioner
NORTHWEST NEWS.