Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-04-02

difficulty which Is liable to cost me my life.
OF Helen's tragic death on the morning
of February l. 1891. / cannot hear 10 tell IN
detail. OF how | covered nv own greet TO
break the news Of her daughters death 10
Mrs. Potts: of how. beside her coffin, Mrs.
Potts wrote to my mother SAYING had
been a son % her when the shadow
of death was over her, has all been
told and every word which / sald or
did or was supposed TO have said or done
1 has been tortured by brilliant and
interruptions prosecutor. with the ASSIST
ance of a renegade Journalist named Du-
worth CbOate into proof that al gulttS
of crime TOR which had no motive
proof that murdered q girl who loved me
aud Oi whom / was so verv, very proud.
Upon these charges ! delivered mysei
INTO custody and after Wa ting Tor year,
locked in a cell mid yermln, damp. and
misery such Gs YOU cannot imagine nor
describe. after wears clamorme n trlai,
watching from month to mo. n nv
mothers HAIR turn gray and her little
patrimouv fade away before the lnroads
Of rapacIous lawyers, | was placed on trial
for my lie.
For two long weeks ] sat each day II
court listening TO the testimony of WIZ
uesses. many of V HON had seen but onceln
my life, and yet who sOlemnly swore that
a boy Of n. had confessed 10 them crlln
without
IN their horror and the defence was handl-
capped. / could not prove did not make
these marvellous confessions. ! 0ld not
know that my poor wife had been addicted
to the drug which caused her death.
told nv lawyers that ! was innocent,
that | had gwen her no poison, and so
they said she could not nave died OF poison
al all.
Ibe autopsy was performed two months
after her death. Experts informed Us that
She might readily have died ot anv OF
several diseases. An expert for the prose
b cution. after an ANALYSIS, testified that ne
found but an unwelghable trace-iesS tDah
one one-hundredth of gram OF morphine.
Il WAS CONVICTED, INNOCENT, or MURDER
Twas depending TO prove nv innocence
bv showing how | loved my wife; o\
proving that her mother, ana not mysell,
had kept the marriage secret. ana thht
she had offered me divorce Whlch re-
fused. But at the last hour my counsel, at
that time Nr Taylor and Mr. jerome, sent
away my witnesses and insisted upon iOr-
mulatlug our defence with the testimony
of experts alone. The jury which tried
mo was an intelligent, weli-meanlng bodV
of men; they were businessmen or me
cnaulcs and could not, OF course, uhuer-
stand the polysvllables OF learned experts
and so the case, with no defence thut any
hut eyDerts could understand, won't 20 the
i,fr- after q charge which ! have re pcct-
tullv shown and proven TO the court ltotl
was the attempt. successful upon the part
Of the Judge. TO place testimony ia tne
lips of nv dead wife Wnlch she Woulu nave
sooner died on the rack than speak. ANA
So was convicted. innocent, of murder.
The District Attorney has declared IN
omen court that the appellate judges had
10 90 ont OF their way 10 affirm TINS NoIdlct'
IN since their remarkable decision, thank
God. the long buried proof ot nv utteI IN
uorpncp has been brought 10 ngNt. wiz
ueSses have SO raincd Their teStiMouN ln'o
court IN the form OF aildGVlts thai the
uembers of IN, Jury have come forward
a,5 certified or sworn that had they known
of TIN. new evidence they would nave ac-
Snch ia the present method OF our law
tha, this testimony had 10 be submitte1
for final decision 10 the Judge VINO urea
me. aud ne had declared IN open court
voar before that he believed mo guilty OF
tha most atrOcious CRIME III hls experience
az s. uag1strate What could be hopod
from ms review Of this new evidence
Would betcyerse his own decisionf would
bo stultitv his mandate OF year ago we
hoped he would. We hoped his consclehc.
would enter into ms decision. W" bopeu
for once he would set aside ne Preju-
dice. but our hope was VAIN anu lAoUsu
we uroyed that witnesses against me SUP
'n,,ted afidayits feud with perjury, a.
,hough we proved that their aflidaYits
sy,orn to bv witnesses hundreds of mlcs
anert we're phrased exactly alike, tins
| Juige. who bad confessed his preJuiice
wear before, rendered decision III wnich
he argued that the proof OF my poor Wiie
| habit would be OF no value 10 me- anu On
| the dictum Of this magistrate, wlthout
| the verdict of a iurv, without the right 70
| place my witnesses before the woriu 10
| open court. without the right 70 enter
| rebuttal or 70 crOse-eXamiue or 10 cHS1
\ criticize the witnesses againsl me. stand
| o.dav condemned 10 die, my name dis
graced, my home III ashes.
"THouon DIE, YY INNOCENCE STILL LIVES
When last Monday faced the court or
sentence spoke by statutory right ~ my
own behalf / did not Try TO justify or 70
| explain. read the record, quoted am
| dayits and sworn testimony. l Grove my
| prosecutor torrid with shame, loadeu Win
| disgrace. branded with the brand OF ON
| ciaT leprosy, from the courtroom. l.
| showed the Court how he had sinned IN
charging that jury. aud when he tried TO
explain showed him again where no was
wrong, but all 10 no purpose. Although
| eynosed ashamed, aud routed IN
| their case, they had an easy an
swer Harris must die on the oth
/ Of May. Yes. you have proven your
prosecutors scoundrels; you have proven
| the witnesses against you to be pcrJurers
| Won have shown that the jury had to pass
ynon the theories OF experts. and that
now when the facts are submitted.
Although they cry aloud that they would
| have acquitted upon these facts, 3ou must
dis on MAY Sth." And yet what q ! do
Though die, my innocence stiii lives