The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-05-14

4
! Jury might consider the want of provo
cation; the preparation of weapon, and
| that there was no quarreling just be-
| fore the killing the identical evidence
| that is present in the case at bar
A number of other North Carolina
cases are quoted to show that lit is inn
material in determining the degree of
| murder how soon after resolving to kill,
the prisoner carries his purpose into exc
cution."
In the case at bar, the prisoner had
been having a high quarrel with one
of deceasefs employees: the deceased
came up and reproved his employee; the
prisoner went down the steps few feet
and stood in the dark with his knife
open and the deceased, the owner of the
gin, went down the steps and up to the
prisoner and asked him in a mild man
ner what the trouble was. The prisoner
made no response, the deceased then gen
tly, not III a rude manner, laid his hand
on the prisoners arm and asked him to
come round to the light and tell him
what the fuss was about" whereupon
with his open knife, the prisoner stabbed
the deceased in the abdomen, and ran
off crying loudly, III kill him! I'll cut
his CUTS OUT He fled from justice and
when sought by the sheriff attempted to
escape by back door and only stopped
after being shot at"
1.-The declaration of the prisoner was
also in evidence that he opened the knife
in his pocket. This, if believed by the
jury, might well have been considered
by them as evidence of delberation and
Il determination to slay the deceased for
the knife in that case could not have
been opened without generalization and
q formed intention to take the deceased
at a disadvantage. The stabbing was
not on a sudden impulse, at least there
was evidence for the jury tending to
prove that it was premeditated.'
And these facts, with the opinion of
the court declaring it was not murder,
together with the threats of lynching in
CASTOR county Immediately following
the killing, bring Judge Clark to a dis
cussion of lynchngs and their cause. He
says:
..From the report of the Attorney Gen
eral of the United States to Congress, it
appears that in the last dozen years the
number of homicdes in the United
States has suddenly risen from 1000 to
10.5OO per annum, and that for the vast
slaughter represented by the last figure,
in round numbers 100 were convicted
of. murder by the courts and 24O were
executed by lynch law-that growing
blot upon our civilization. In this State,
from the official Criminal Statistics
on an average there are 10 homlcldeS
per annum, for which on an average two
are executed by law and four are lynch
ed. though doubtless all the lynchings
are not reported. For 1894, the Attor-
ney Generals report showed eight lynch
ings and three executions by law, and
the next year two lynchings and no legal
executions Lynch law, evil that it is,
is a protest of society against the utter
inefficiency of the courts as above shown
to protect the public against murder. 1t
is an evidence that society under that
first of laws, the right of self-preserva-
ton, is endeayoring to protect itself
when the costly machinery of courts has
failed of the object of it's creation so far
as homicide is concerned. The wisest
course is not to suppress the facts, but to
probe the evil and remove the cause.
''This inefficiency of the courts is
chiefly due to the failure to adapt legis-
lation as to murder trials to the chang
ed surroundings in other respects. When,
as at common law, prisoner on trial for
murder was not allowed the benefit of
counsel or to have witnesses summoned
on his behalf or to cross examine those
summoned for the prosecution, the hui
mainly of the judges to even up mat
tiers invented the disparity of challenges
whereby the State is allowed only four
peremptory challenges, while the prison
er has 23 without assigning cause, and
an unlimited number, of course if he
can show cause. Now that the prisoner
has the benefit of counsel, the right to
have the compulsory attendance of wit
nesses on his own behalf and to cross
examine the States witnesses, and even
to be a witness in his own behalf, if he
wishes land freed from comment if he
does not the retention of the enormous
disparity of peremptory challenges (23)
in his favor enables him to run for
some one man on the venire who is his
friend or the friend of his counsel or OPP
posed to capital punishment. Further
the prisoner must be proved guilty be-
yOnd reasonable doubt and the doubt
of one juror defeats conviction, besides
the prisoner can except to any ruling or
charge of the court, but the Solicitor for
the State cannot, and there are other dis
ordinations in behalf of the prisoner
and against the State. The result is
that the gravest and most fragrant MUIR
der can rarely be punished if the prisoner
or his friends have means to engage able
and influential counsel who can utilize
the overwhelming advantages given
the prisoner in trials for murder. At
torneys General Davidson, Osborne and
Walser have in their reports called at
tention to this evil and recommended
reform so as to give the State a fair
trial in such cases. The practical effect
of our present system is that murder,
however fragrant, if the prisoner or his
friends have money entails merely
sharp fine upon the prisoner, imposed for
the benefit of some influential and able
lawyer in the way of a fee-it is merely
this and nothing more. The heavy ex-
pense of the trial all falls upon the de-
fenceless public with the increased inse-
curity of human life resulting from easy
acquittals. An ideal trial is one in
which the innocent has nothing to fear
and the guilty but little to hope. In our
murder trials happily we fulfil the first
condition but arc aycaedinplv far from,