Arizona silver belt., 1893-12-30
TnE rEwEsRuRY TRIAL sIaseo.

Aho NetuicV or guilty rcidereu h
 the trial jury in the case of the Terri
 tory of Arizona ys. Ed Tewksbury
 npon the charge of numbering Thoma
 Graham, suggests the falbility of jury
 trials, and especially of the jury tha
 wholly ignored the testimony on be
 half of the accused, without little oI
 evidence showing it unworthy of ere.
 dence. Jurors are but mon, and in all
 ages have shown full share of frailty.
 Twas that fact appearing to Charles
 Sumner caused him td remark q am
 too familiar with the history of judica
 proceedings to regard them with any
 superstitious reverence, and he cited
 reasons for that opinion, among which
 wGs the condemnation of Socrates to
 drink the fatal hemlock, and the intol-
 erance which pushed the Saviour bare
 footed over the payements of Jeru-
 salem, bending beneath his cross: and
 at later day, surrounded by all the
 forms of law, hung alleged witches at
 Salem, and banished Roger Williams
 fromthe NewEngland colony for declare
 ing thst the power of civil magistrates
 extends tc She bodies, goods and ont
 ward slate of men but not to their
 souls and consciences.
 Happily, under the blissful era of
 Wouter Van Twiller, New England
 theocracy was ignored by the legal scumen of that renowned Governor of
 New York who sent his jack knife as a
 summon, accompanied by his tobacco box as a warrant after Barent Blocker
 upon complaint of Wandle Schoon- hoyen, who alleged that the defendant refused to come to settlement of ac- counts, and being in court. each pro duced book of accounts which the Court weighed and counted the leaves and finding them of the same number of leaves and of identical weight, ad- judged that therefore the accounts were equally balanced, and for that reason it was decreed that Wandle should give Barent receipt and Barent should give Wandle receipt, and the consla- hie should pay tlle cost. As another evidence of progressive justice we cite
 
 the case of the man wAo was arraigned upon the charge of stealing an ax Three persons swore that they saw the accused steal the ax and six persons testified upon oath thAt they did not see him steal it, whereupon the jury acquitted the accused upon the ground that the weight of evidence was in favor of the prisoner
 Tom Fitch in his defense of Tewks- bury said that some swarthy gentleman other than the one on trial must be the guilty person, and that the identity of the cuiprit by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution was rashly deter mined, by nasty glance, by the com plexion of the reeeding person of the offender, but, nevertheless, offended justice, believing that bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, refused to orelaz the hhnd ahd set ths prisoner free. The zeal displayed in summon ing upwards of one hundred witnesses for the prosecution, and securing their in court, suggests an anec- dote of Chief Justice Storey. "At the trial of a Methodist preacher for tue nusdsr of a young girl the evidence vas entirely cireumstantial and there was wide difference of opinion con corning his guilt One morning, itss before the opening of she court, a brother preacher stepped up to Jona. than Mason, counsel for the defense. and said: Sir, had dream last night, in which the angel Gabriel ap- peered and told me that the prisoner Was not guilty' 'Ah,' replied Mason, have him subpenaed immediately. 70 : The testimony of majority of these witnesses for the prosecution was triy- al, Of no importance iu the case, and hany who plead poverty had their ex. | lenses paid by Maricopa county, and j contracts were made with the railroad for their Transportation at II 'educed rates. It has been rumoredand so stated by ' newspapers, that the verdict in the lewkbury case, lately tried at Tucson, ' ' gas 2 compromise. The jury were out < or twenty-four hours. Eight were or conviction and four for acquittal. 4. s f it be true that She jurors voting for cquittal were persuaded, induced, or oerced to yield by threats, or any means taken to deprive the jurors of 7. air expression of opinien, then it is |; yident that Tewksbury failed to secure ' fair and impartial trial If this a, umor be borne out by facts, the stat ', tes of Arizona expressly grant new :, rial to Tewksbury. It is barely pos Ii, ible that counsel for the defense de- ' fred to take advantage and make T., 'oint of this circumstance, for when sked if he wished the iury polled be eelined, and thus not have it go oA is ecord that t was the verdict of each ia