Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1896-02-20

|
in northern papers, and his recent
letter to Attorney General Harmon
has been more extensively noticed.
AS this letter was published i'll q
Republican paper it was generally
taken here to be mainly political
in its character and when the at
torney general failed to receive
any personal copy this conclusion
was inevitable.
The Republic correspondent
some time ago asked the depart.
ment for some statement upon the
subject, but it was deemed best to
wait and see if the judge intended
to favor the department with a
copy by mail This so far has not
arrived, however, and while the
attorney general has not had time
or inclination to give the matter
serious attention the assistant at
torney general, Mr.. Whitpey, who
has had charge of most of the cases
appealed from Judge Parker s
court, made a statement this after
noon to the Republic correspond
ent, which is given below. Mr..
Whitney says:
"As Judge Parker has sent to
the department of justice no copy
of the letter published in the st.
Louis Globe-Democrat of Febru-
ary 5, TO which you call my atten-
ton, no reply seems to be called
for. The letter makes, however,
misleading statements as to GER
tain cases in which | represented
the government, which perhaps
should be corrected.
The learned judges grievance
arises from the fact that this de-
partment has confessed error in
two murder cases and one man.
slaughter case. In all of these
cases the error was very plain. In
each the prisoner claimed the kill
ing was in self defense, the de-
ceased having begun shooting at
him. Judge Parker charged the
jury that the prisoner could not be
acquitted unless he was doing
what he had right to do when
the other man began the shooting
at him, and unless he used every
means in his power otherwise to
save his owh life, such as retreat
ing as far as he could, or disabling
his adversary without killing him.
1T is perfectly well settled that
this is not the law
although man is doing some
thing wrong, he has a right to de-
fend himself from a murderous at
tack, even to the extent of killing
his assailaut. When one man be-
gins shooting at another, the other
has right to shoot back without
attempting to retreat, and The law
does not require that he take care
ful aim in order to disable his ad-
versary without killing him. The
charge of the judge at the trial was
founded on mediaevsl authority
dating from the time when affrays
were conducted with swords,
spears or knives, which is altogeth.
er inapplicable TO the age of fire.
arms.
"The learned judge also says
that two former murderers, Holder
and Pointer, were convicted after
a similar charge; that the convic
tons were affirmed by the supreme
court; and that the men were hung
This is all true. 1t is also true
that there were other very gross
errors in the charges in those cases.
Those men are the two whom /
mentioned in memorandum
which | submitted to the president
in December, 1894. in connection
with an application for the par
don of a man convicted by Judge
Parker, in which l said: u have
actually argued at the supreme
court eight murder cases coming
from Judge Parker, and have
been, to some extent, cognizant of
the facts in seven others. OF these
Is cases four have been affirmed
by the supreme court, nine have
been reversed, one is now in the
hands of the court undecided. and
the remaining one is not yet ar
gued. but | have recommended
that error be confessed. In near
ly all OF the reversed cases, error
would probably have been con-
iessed by the department if the ex-
ceptions had been properly taken
by defendants counsel. Out of
the four affirmed, the charges in
two contained very gross errors,
similar to, and, in TACT, almost
verbatim copies OF errors in other
charges for which cases have been
reversed They were not, however,
excepted 10 by counsel, and, there
fore, not brought to the attention
of the court. The third Of the four
cases contained error from which
| have no doubt the case would |
have been reversed had exceptions
been properly taken. In TWO out
OF these three cases the defendant
has since been hung. The fourth |
case | m the least familiar with
and don't know whether there was
error in this charge or not
"The statement that the record |
in Pointers case was similar to
that is Lewis case is also incorrect.
The differences i'm the two cases
were pointed out by the supreme
court in Isl U. s., 1886.
The judges statement in his
newspaper letter, to the effect that
the Holder and Pointer cases are
authorities in support of every ex-
preston used by him in his in
structions to the jury, whether
counsel tcok exceptions at the
trial or not. seems to indicate that
be is entirely ignorant Of the rules