The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-06-10

ful eye over every article, bee tuse It Is
upon these articles that he ~ TO ma ke
sworn statements. He doesn't care 10
trust them so others until o has nnisned
his testimony. So the little hatchet
blade rests with him as do the Others.
whether he has found human blood
on IL cannot yet be positively answered;
but there Is valuable side light on the
4 usipa s Ss That sSs S MSoay
acknowledged, in his opening speech.
that this hatchet blade was smooth; that
Professor Wood had said that IL blood
had been on the other hatchets 1t could
not have been easily washed off; IL It
had been Oh this little haichet all traces
OF IL could readily have been washed oil.
IL the little hat chet had ha evidences OF
blood on IL the government need not have
confessed that all blood traces could
easily have been removed. III there was
blood OF 1t why say anything about ~
removal? The thought Is Significant IL
not ab outeiy conclusive
WIN Lizzie's Former Testimony Be Al
lowed?
The most essential feature OF yester
day was the question which arose upon
admission or rejection as testimony at
this trial OF the stenographic report OF
LizZie's testimony at the coroners IN
quest. 1t has been the custom In this
state 10 allow such tes ,hio"S w oo 80" 49,
by the government. This custom has
arisen because it's justice never
seems TO have been disputed or
questioned, and so far as Is known
the Massachu decisions contain no
decision Of any court whatever on thls
point. Decisions have been rendered In
other states, however, and they are
widely at variance; some being In favor
and some against the use OF the accused's
evidence on previous hearings or in
lower courts The precedent Is cited In
the New York courts in tue case or the
famous emDeZzler, JACOB Snarp- w hen
he was tried his testimony, gwen whiie
under arrest before the state senate In
vestigating committee, vas allowed as
evidence by the lower court. his coun.
sci appealed and the higher court refused
TO allow the testimony to be used. The
ground of the decision was that his tes-
tlmony at the senate committee hearing
was compulsory, The TWO cases are,
however. not analogous. Mr.. Sharp was
under arrest and compelled to testify.
Miss Borden was not under arrest at the
time of the inquest. She was not COM
pelled to testify. She was there as any
other citizen would be. to tell what she
knew, In hope that the guilty one might
be Iound. She was not represented by
council because none of the Others at the
inquest were SO represented. Such is
the line Of argument that the prosecution
will follow.
Was She Under Duress7
On the other hand the defense will
claim that, at the time OF the inquest,
she was under suspicion. (ths inquest
was on Tuesday, the arrest was on
Thursday which is true; that she
asked for counsel, and her request was
fused. which is true. and that therefore
In certain sense she was compelled to
testify.
The essence of the question Is as to
what extent 1t can be shown that she
was "in duress." This Is nice point,
aud as Justice Blodgett said in CONVERSE
tion with your correspondent last night,
j 8 decision will depend oL number of
want to know how firmly aud how def
nitely Lizzie had been informed that
she was suspected: they will want to know
whether she freely and willingly went
TO the inquest; they will want TO know
whether during her testimony at that in-
quest she was fully informed that her
testimony might DE used against her, and
that she should be careful not 10 say any
thing that would incriminate herself.
Upon these and many preliminary but
vital points the opposing LAWYERS are 70
agree before the arguments are heard.
There is, however, this peculiar phase
Of the question. Ii the decision or the
the govern ment that will end the mat
ter; but IL 1t is adverse TO the defendant
she can take an appeal to the supreme
court Of the state. Chances at present
seem to favor the government in the de-
cision.
The Government Gained . Point.
The government gained one point yes
terday. 1t was the last episode OF the
afternoon. Mrs. Churchill was recalled
and tesli flied that she does not know
what Bedford cord Is. That fact weakens
the position of the defense; for IL Mrs.
Churchill does not know what Bedford
cord IS 1t does not necessarily fol-
low that her general description
of the uress that LIZZIE wore OF
the fatal morning might not apply
to a Bedford cord dress, even Though sne
called IL "calico or cambria" This
must not lie accepted as conclusive. IL
does not absolutely follow that because
Mrs. Churchill does not know what Bid
ford CT rd is she would not be able 70 dis
tinguish between Bedford cord aud cali
CO, or that If Lizzie wore Bedford cord
dress she would have called 1t Calico
There is a wide difference between the
cerCain aud the possible deduction from
the facts presented.