Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-05-13

ceeded in an exhaustive argument 10
show that self-defence did not enter III,
to Phillips's case; that the latter had
never been menaced by Smith nor at
tackled, and read to show that bare
words did not justify the shooting down
OF a man, nor could bare fear be plead
in extenuation of such a crime. There,
he said, are the laws of this Common
wealth. If a man threatened the
speaker he had no right to Kill MN on
sight, but should both meet and his al
versary grow menacing or act as
though he was about to make an at
tack, then he could act in defence by
DESTROYING the man. There was, how
ever, nothing of this kind in Philips 5
case. On the night he shot down
Smith the latter had made no hostile
demonstrations, but was standing on
corner with friend, unarmed anu III
every particular acting the part OF
law abiding citizen. Now in regard TO
the prisoners's insanity had 1t occur
red to the jury that the mere fact enaV
he did, as he claimed, act in selt-de-
fence shows be acted with purpose
a premeditated purpose, the result OF
which he had doubtless weighed y? HIS
act was deliberate, the result OF healthy
thought. There was nothing OF the
cratic in it. He saw his victim; he
quit talking to Mr.. Orrson; crossed the
street; passed around Fora Hill; got Ill
front of his man; fired into his bosom
and then into his back as he ran. The
insanity plea, as the jury knew, was al
ways introduced in desperate cases. 1t
was Il last resort to save murderers
from the murderers doom. The llr-
ginia Court of Appeals had decided
every man to be sane until the con-
tray was proven. Had Phillips proven
himself to have been irresponsible
when he shot and killed law-abidlng
citizen in our streets OH the Odd OF July,
1891? Mr.. Johnson then graphically
described every act of Phillips $50 far
as known) during the day preceding the
night of the shooting until he haG
closed his victims eyes in death, ana
appealed to the jury if they didn't be-
lieve him responsible for his deed.
Didn't the prisoner know the results
which would follow such course Oh
his part? At this juncture Messrs.
Burke and Brent made number OF
objections to statements made by MI,
Johnson and the Interruptions became
so frequent that the latter grew excited
and refused to be interrupted any FUR
Their, declaring the object of the de-
fence was to kill time, and If he was not
allowed to continue his argument with
out ANNOYANCE he would quit the case.
Mr.. Marbury stated that there was an
evident purpose on the part OF the IN
terrupters TO break and disconnecl
Mr.. Johnson's argument and thereby
DESTROY its face. This Messrs. Burke
and Brent emphatically denied. Or
der was soon restored and Mr.. john
son proceeded. The theory of seli-de-
fence he termed the vericst nonsense,
while that OF insanity, was totally IN
admissible. He analysed and criticised
the testimony of Doctor Roy in regard
to diseases Of the mind when an at
tempt had been made to apply 1t to
Phillips case. Experts on mental dis
eases. he said, in our day could exam
inc the head and tell in which hemi-
sphere of the brain the disease was To-
Gated. whether it was in the upper or
lower: no such examination had been
made of the prisoners head. No attempt
had been made to prove insanity at
the first trial. DR.. Roy had stated that
when a person wept it was sign OF
loss of will power, hystcria, crazlness,
responsibility, etc. Was Simon Peter
crazy when he went out and wept al
ter having denied the Saviour three
times? The speaker then took up the
charge OF seduction which had been
urged against the dead man, whose lips
are now sealed in death and who can
not refute the charge. Had any evil
dence been produced to substantiate
such a charge? Hadn't the defence
adroitlv avoided undertaking any such
thing? The prosecution had always
been ready to combat that charge.
This, however was not an open ques-
ton now: it had been closed. Mr.
Johnson hurriedly passed over Phi
lips antccedents, his mode OF lie
and occupations, and argued that such
persons were very sensitive in regard
TO personal aflronts and injuries.
The speaker then showed that Phillips
had commenced to drink some hours
before he carried out his purpose
against his victim. He had gone to
Capitola Crossman's house and drank
beer there had, according to his own
statement, drank at Jacob Brill's house
and according to Louis Brill and Frank
Cook had taken large drink OF clear
whisky in the Opera House Restaurant
had taken more at Schwab's saloon, af-
ter which he had repaired TO his own
saloon, where he may still further have
fortified his courage for the deed he had
premeditated. Now as to the motive
for numbering George Smith. The
speaker repudiated the alleged attack
on the honor of his sister and mother
and the other phantoms, as he termed
them, the defence had logged in as rea-
sons for the crime. There was no COM
bination of motives-there was but one
impellng reason that urged Phillips on
as an assassin-that was the fancied no.
ton that George Smith had been in
strumental i'll having his outfit seized at
the Gentlemen's Driving Park. No
matter what Sheriff Veitch had
said to disabuse the prisoners mind OF
the idea he still held tenaciously to it,
and the prisoner and his partner in the
gambling business John Harrison) were
that night seen,by I. NJ. Kell in an ex-
cited and heated condition, evidently
discussing that very subject. The pris-
oner himself, when placed on the stand,
gave the best evidence that that was
the real cause for the shooting by
| onJ NAV ahout the