The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-03-24
The Harris Verdict JudicialIy Re


The New York Sun did a high pub
lie service, yesterday, in printing the
full text OF the decision of Justice
Gray of the New York Court of APP
peals in the case of Carlyle Harris.
If the public in general would only
read this mastery document, the pre-
posterous petition and mass meeting
business would be brought to a speedy
end. The Judge dissects the evil
dence with consummate skill, and, IN
the main, with impartiality, and the
conclusion which he reaches. that the
proven facts irresistibly lead to the
conclusion that Harris is guilty, must
be shared by every n who has the
most ordinary respect for the rules of
logic.
The Judge says there were two
questions for the jury to decide:
First, did Helen Potts or Harris die
of morphine poisoning? Second, did
Harris administer the poison with
the purpose of killing her? His dis
cussion of the medical and expert
testimony on the former issue does
not leave the shadow of a doubt as to
the cause of death. 1t was morphine
poisoning to a certainty. Any one of
the symptoms might be indicative OF
something else, but the whole group
will fit into no other theory, while
they constitute a typical morphine
case. Add the fact that morphine
was found in the stomach of the dead
woman, and it is mere folly to dis
pute further on this point.
Taking the second question, the
Judge shows the two necessary ele-
ments OF conviction to be distinctly
present. First, he connects the ac-
cused with the cause of death; second,
he shows a motive for murder; in
deed, almost a clear disposition to
make away with the girl.
Helen Potts, apparently in good
health one evening, died the next
morning after taking a capsule fur
nished to her-according to his own
admission-by Harris. Harris pre-
tends that the capsule was one of six
which he had prepared, containing a
harmless quantity Of morphine. 1t
appears, first, that if all the morphine
in the six had got into one capsule. it
would not have suficed to cause the
effects noted. But Harris provides
the proof that this was not the case.
He took the wholly inexplicable pre-
caution of retaining two of the six in
his possession, only giving the
girl four. The two contained
their due proportion of morphine,
1t is beyond explanation, as Judge
Gray points out, that any mistake
could have been made by the COM
FOUNDER which would render just one
capsule out of the six virulently poi
ono Harris had had the capsules
in his possession i've q day. The in
ference is that he emptied n of its
contents and filled it with morphine,
which he had opportunity to obtain.
ILLS lQ6d ID luIbACl oRPOlOO0 oHO
fact that no quinine was found in the
girls stomach although it was a prin-
cipal element in the supposed compos-
ition of the capsules. The Judge
points out a number of minor suspic-
ious circumstances, to which, we are
bound to say, we think he gives an
exaggerated Importance. But here is
the one strong point that has never
been in any way met by the defence,
and it must be admitted that given
this, the other circumstances are of
value by way of confederation.
The matter of motive is handled by
Judge Gray in the same conclusive
strain as the other phases of the case.
He traces the relations between
Harris and his unfortunate young
wife from beginning to end. He shows
the fear Harris had of being exposed
as a bigamist; he proves the mere
tricious relations he had with other
ONE indicating that he was
wholly tired of Helen and anxious to
be rid OF her. Certainly this part
of the case is strong enough, and most
Of it rests on Harris own sayings and
doings.
Now there is just n point in the
whole case which Judge Gray does
not dispose of, for the very good
reason that it was not before him.
This is the question whether Helen
could have got the fatal dose OF NOR
phine Independently and taken it in
addition to an innocent capsule given
her by Harris the night OF her
death. In other words, was Helen
addicted to the use of morphine? This
is the question that was disposed OF
by Recorder Smyth last week. Har-
ris. it is true, presented considerable
evidence to support this theory, and,
Of course, if it could be proven, all the
fabric OF Judge Gray's argument
would be dashed to pieces. But the
State met Harris evidence with en-
phatic contradictions, and the net re-
suit was that the Recorder rejected
fha whole business as un1mporJant TO