The Portland daily press., 1893-09-29

era 5 piea, QlSgulSeu enough HOb 10
wound the fine sensibilities of his CLIENT
but not enough to be imperceptible to
the jury. We are bound ito say that it
was the best and most hopeful argu-
ment that could have been offered in
Hafper's behalf, and to THAT he owes his
escape forssthe time being. No doubt the
political character of the case helped by
making some of the. jurors more recep-
tive to this argument than they other
wise would have been, yet, inasmuch as
without it no juror could have offered
any respectable reason for acquittal, 1t
must be regarded as the main factor
which led to disagreement. 1t is I'M
doubtedly true that there was much stu
pidity about Harper's performance. But
is bright rascality to be Expected from
dull person? Harper says he tried to
count the vote honestly, and his counsel
admits that that he came to very
stupid result. Now if it be admitted
that Harper can come to very stupid re-
suits when trying to count honestly and
in straightforward manner, on what
ground is it contended that when trying
to count dishonesty he could not come
to result as stupid? In other words why
does stupid result show that
Harper must have counted hon
estly? Are dull men more likely to
produce bright results when they are
performing as rascals than when they
are acting honestly? 1t does not so seem
J.. ~ %ba ,o,,+,.o,,x, a. caaynS fo II
that a man of feeble and sluggish intel
lee would be more likely to be at his best
when he was not weighed down by a
guilty conscience. To navigate crooked
channel is more difficult than to navigate
a straight one,. Harper says he was
navigating a straight one, yet his coun-
sci is compelled to admit that he got far
out of it, But in the next
breath his counsel proceeds to
argue with great confidence that
because he got outof it is proof posi-
tive that he was not sailing a crooked
stream, since if he had been sailing
that he would have steered smore success
fully; and to that kind of an argument
couple of jurors say amen. The fact
is that very little can. be inferred from
the result of Harper's count as to his
state of mind when he was making it.
A man who is likely to come to an
absurd result when he is counting hon.
estIy is likely to come to result no less
absurd when counting dishonesty. A
dishonest purpose is not likely to sharpen
the intellect and turn a dull person
into bright person. Evidence of Har-
per's intent, Of the frame of mind he
was in must be sought elsewhere. 1t is
to be found in the testimony of Mr..
Charles F Guptill, and it is SO striking,
so overwhelming that it is difficult to
understand how juryman could have
hesitated for moment in regard to it,
Mr.. Guptill was friendly, he was of the
same. political party, he was candidate
on the ticket. Harper had no reason
to question his sincerity. He might
have thought that Mr.. Foss and Mr..
Decelle and the other wicked Republic
cans were setting a trap for him, but
there was no reason for any suspicion
against Mr.. Guptill When then after Mr..
Guptill had implored him not to burn
any more ballots, but to have recount
of what remained, which were amply
sufficient to show whether any error had
been committed, he proceeded
as soon as Mr.. Guptill's back was
turned, to burn up more ballots, he dis
closed beyond all shadow of doubt his
state of mind. No man who had made
an honest error would have refused to
take this opportunity to discover and
correct it. Harper refused to avail him
self of it. Nay more, he went farther
and destroyed the evidence on which
others could determine the truth or
falsity of his count. His conduct
on that occasion was consist
emit with the theory of the
government that he had knowingly
made miscount, and with no other
reasonable hypothesis.