The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1893-07-28

advertisement. But he had not long to
wait for his reward. The New York
Evening Post published the advertise
ment as an item of interest on the 5th
of December. On the 9th of December
Taber Chadwick. a. citizen of Shrews-
bury, Monmouth county, N. j., informed
the editor of that paper that the muir
dered Colvin was then living in that
town, weak in mind but in good bodily
health. The Post published Mr.. Chad
wick's letter and the information it COM
prised was not long in reaching the COM
munity which was so fierce in the pun
ishment of crime that it had come very
near taking thellife Of an innocent man.
Even then many insisted that the story
was hoax, which would end in the ridi-
Guile of the too confiding minister. One
Whelpley, formerly of Manchester but
then of New York, who knew Colvin,
went to New Jersey in quest of him. He
returned and wrote to Manchester that
''he had Colvin with him." Another
acquaintance wrote to Manchester,
while l am writing Russell Colvin is
before me- Even the good people of
Manchester were incredulous and laid
wagers that the report was deception.
But on the 22d of December, when the
oAdtE@D hIllNtu db DCluiiSIOuy NHtIG Illt
court was in session, Mr.. Whelpley was
one of its passengers and Russell Colvin
was another. The court suspended its
session to look upon one who in a sense
had been dead and was alive again. Col
vim recognized and called several ac-
quaintances by name.
Toward evening"" continues the mar
rative of the good minister, "Colvin
reached Manchester. The cry was
raised, 'Colvin has Gomez The stage
was driven swiftly, and signal given.
All was hustle and confusion. The
stage stopped at Capt. Blacks inn. The
village was all alive; all were running
for the sight of the man whom all be-
lieved to be dead. The prison doors
were unbolted aud the news announced
to Stephen that Colvin had come. The
chains on his arms were taken off, while
those on his legs remained, so impatient
was he to meet the one who came to
bring him life. ColYin gazed upon the
chains and asked, What is that for,
Stephen? The tier answered, BE
cause they say murdered YOU Rus
sci replied, you never hurt mer"
There is no occasion for pursuing the
narrative of the excellent Clergyman. l
regard it AZ one of tho most interesting
in the annals of crime. The reverend
author published it in the year 1920 as
appendix to his sermon entitled 1.-THE
Prisoner Released" A sermon delivered
at Manchester, VT, Lords day, January
9, 1920, on the remarkable interposition
of Divine Providence in the deliVerance
of Stephen and Jesse Boorn, who had
been under sentence of death for the
supposed murder of Russell Colvin.
The important difference between the
Boorn case and the case now attracting
attention is obvious. In the first what
is termed in the law ''the corpus de-
licti," the fact of the murder, was as
sumed; in the second case it is proved.
But when the public is informed that
the gravest suspicious against the &C
cused rest upon her contradictory state
ments, we must be permitted to say that
such statements are very unreliable. that
the BOorn case shows how worthless
tn y are when they rise to the dignity of
complete confession of guilt. That they
are contradictory proves that they are
unstudied and ought to be regarded as
indication Of innocence rather than rs
an evidence of criminality.
Notwithstanding the numerous and
excellent maxims of criminal law, the
observance of which is supposed to in
sure the protection of the innocent per-
sons charged with the crime of murder,
such innocent persons have been con-
victed and executed. Such an event as
the taking of a human life to avenge a
crime not committed is shocking to the
moral sense. 1t will never again happen
if judges will require positive proof of
the corpus deficit, aGd after the crime is
absolutely proved will follow the rule of
law which disregards circumstances con-
sistent with any hypothesis of innocence
and admits in evidence only those which
are inconsistent with any theory except
that of the guilt of the person charged
with the crime.