The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-03-24
CARD FROM MR.. STovER.

To the Editor Of the Eagle.
Ny attention was called to card from
Mr. A. II. Reed in The EAGLE of the 22nd,
in which he says, Tin justice to himself and
the other four jurymen who signed the
unlawfully used verdict in the SDidle case.
said that before the Beacon or any citizen
of this city casts his insinuations of scorn-
full disapproval and partisanship upon the
other gentlemen and myself they should
carefully and honestly investigate and
weigh the testimony in the above case. !"
I agree with him heartily, and / also
agree with him that it is a sad and sorrow
full case. He says how many OF the few
persons censuring our verdict would
be willing to have signed a verdict OF "ac-
cidentally discharged" in the face of the
testimony of Mr.. Skinner, who swore thst
when confronted with the statement OF
the wounded man, "Oh, you have killed
me-" Now, there are two explanations to
not stop when halted, be shot him on pur-
pose; the other is-and just as reasonable
that If he had stopped when he was
halted. there would have been no cause
for the officer drawing and discharging his
pistol in the air to brighten him into step
ping; therefore, he could not nor
would not have shot him accidentally.
The same explanation will apply to Irish's
reply to Adams question. think Mr..
Skinner andAdams are honorable citizens,
and, undoubtedly testified as they saw
and heard Mr.. Reed says what about the
conflicting testimony of Officers Sculiey
and Irish He said Sculley testified that
he Was $50 feet away from the tragedy
The fact is that Sculiey testimony was that
he was 200 or go feet away and Irish 80 or
40 feet In my judgment if those men,
testifying as to distances. bad agreed ex-
actly, it would look as if they had
made up the story, but rs 1t
was they undoubtedly told the truth AS
they individually saw it. 1t is not reason
able to suppose that il they had compared
statements that they would have gotten
nearer together as to the distance?
Now have never charged Mr.. Reed and
the other four with being prejudiced or
that they gave partisan decision, but
the reading of that card in the EAGLE and
comparing it with the whole evidence IN
the case it surely smacks OF partisanship:
Mr.. Reed has stated nothing In his caro-
from the evidence but those points bearing
toward conviction. He should remember
that man is expected to tell the whole
truth as we'll as part Of it IL he wishes to
convince people that he Is not preJudlced
Why did not Mr.. Reed quote further
from Mr. Sculley's testimony concerning
the shooting? Sculley testified that Spidle
Irish ran after him aud called to him to
halt, that Irish fired in the air, that in two
or three seconds Irish fell down, or partly
down, and at the same time he heard the
report of the pistol the second time. Or
why didn't Mr.. Reed state what Mr..
Mitchell or other eye witnesses testified to,
that Spidle ran, that Irish halted him.
that Irish fired in the air the fret time
that Irish fell and at the same
time he heard the second shot. aud why
didn't Reed tell something of what Irish
testified to? Why was it that that Mr..
Reed ignored all the testimony Of the eye
witnesses, except that part of Ofnccr
Sculley's testimony, which he thought
would be against Irish. i hope the readers
of the EAGLE and everyone will investi-
gate all the evidence in this case and not
part of it, and then lay all prejudice aside.
and am willing to abide by their de-
csion, whether Mr.. Reed and the other
four are right or vino signed the acct
den tai verdict JOSEPH SLOWER.