The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-07-11

prisonment" George G.. Clough, juror,
and now a practicing lawyer, earnestly
urges that the death penalty be committed.
Communication is urged by Judges Hurt and
Davidson of the court of criminal appeals.
Petitions signed by nearly 1000 citizens
of the city and county of Dallas ask either
pardon or communication. Many letters
from prominent men of the county, includ-
ing lawyers, merchants and farmers, are
presented, requesting in some instances
absolute pardon and in others commuta-
ton.
The testimony shows that Miller had
led a quiet and peaceful life previous to
the evening before the killing.
The theory of the State and the testi-
mony of the witness is that no shot was
fired by either Riddle of Early until after
Riddle was shot, and that express malice
was shown by the threats made on the
previous evening and the further fact that
he had his pistol ready and executed his
threat when he first saw the officers.
There can be little if any doubt, that there
is evidence to support this theory, and the
question is, does the evidence exclude with
certainty every other theory? If the
testimony to the effect that Riddle did not
shoot at ALL and that Early did not shoot
until after he had fallen, be
true, two physical facts are unac--
been recently discharged, and (2) that
the marks of two bullets were on the
tools and ON the west wall where they
hung. If these facts did mot exist 1T
would have been in the power of the State
to show it, at least so far as the marks
upon the wall We're concerned. A witness
testified that they must have been made
by some one firing from the door, and
This is supported by the physical facts.
The conclusion of the trial judge that
the policemen fired first seems fully war
ranted. NEhe facts show that one Shot
was certainly fired from the doorway,
and probably two. If the witnesses did
not, through mistake or otherwise, testify
to so important fact may it not be that
they did not relate other facts which it
was not in the power of the defense to
Show? LIN determining this, the confu-
Sion, resulting excitement and intense
bias of the witnesses must be borne in
mind. Again, was the homicide the result
solely of previously expressed malice?
That something had enraged Miller and
rendered him apprehenSive of trouble with
the officers is clearly shown. His threats
conclusively show the condition of his
mind at that time and that he was then
fatally bent upon mischief. Was his
mind in that condition when he reached
for his weapon on seeing the officers?
A night had passed, and Miller about 10
O'Clock in the morning was sitting at his
work. There is nothing to show that
he knew the officers had been informed of
his misdemeanOr or were coming to ar
rest him. Only a moment could have
elapsed from mis- first sight of the officers
until he made his first demonstration.
In that moment could he have reflected
and with cool mind deliberately formed the
design to kill? Inasmuch is he was told
the day before the homicide that Riddle
had declared that he only wanted to get
his hands ON him, was the demonstration
of Miller defensive? Did Miller in that
moment apprehend personal violence?
These are questions of probabilities and
must be determined by Inference; and,
while it is not intended to intimate THAT
the verdict for murder of the first degree
is not warranted, it is not believed that
these questions can be answered with
that absolute certainty that justified the
infiction of death.
We recommend that Communication to
life imprisonment he granted.
w. b. DUNBAR,
w. G. benson,
Board Pardon Advisers.