The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-11-17
very bad practice for Jurors to convict
man OF q heinous crime one day and

very bad practice for JURORS TO convict
a man OF q helnous crime one day and
petition for his, pardon the next.
attorneys file a'spetitlon,
praying for the pardon OF Mr.. Colts.
saying that from their knowledge. OF the
testimony and facts which developed
later on, they do not believe he should
the belief OF other men. no matter how
conscientious we may think they arc.
especially when they do not give US the
facts which convince them. 4
IAN unusually large number OF petit
tions and letters from business men,
officials and prominent citizens gener-.
ally are filed. praying for the pardon OF
Cots. Many Of them contain splendid
testimony In regard to his good charac-
ter previous to this unfortunate trou-
bic. One of them, from prominent
business house, states that that house,
Is willing to employ Mr. Colts at sal
urys of $1,000 per year. All these petit
TONERS very sincerely and earnestly
urge the pardon of this man. unfortu-
nately for him, however. 1t appears
from the evidence in this case that a
vast amount OF testimony was intro
duced against his good character. And
should this any way have much weight
WIN poaip A"ot VI toou
ter has one purpose and one only before
jury and that Is In q case where
there Is doubt TO show that 1t was not
probable the defendant could have COM
mltted the crime OF which he was ac-
cused. Possibly too, a court in In
filcting punishment might take into
consideration the question OF former
good character In mitigating the same.
II certainly cannot be urged that be-
cause man has, previous to the COM
mission of crime led an exemplary life
he should be relieved from the punish
ment following his crime. The jury In
this case passed on the question OF Mr..
Colts former good character and
found him guilty In spite of all claims
made on his behalf. We do not feel Mt
liberty to disturb the verdict Of that
jury on account Of the former good
been satisfactorily shown to US and not
disputed.
I'VE must accept as fact that Colts
Is guilty because he was SO found to
be by the jury, and its verdict was ap-
proved By the Judge. At the beginning
Of the trial the burden was upon the
state to show to the entire exclusion OF
all reasonable doubt that an oftense
had been committed and that Colts Is
the guilty party. After protracted,
fair and impartial trial these two prop
osit.ons were determined against him.
1t is now incumbent upon Colts to show
at least to Il reasonable certainty that
he is not guilty. From the nature OF
things. we must yield great respect to
the Judgment Of the court. and particu-
larly so, when that Judgment Is based
upon the verdict OF O Jury which is
founded largely upon inferences. deduc-
tions, crcu,nstantial evidence and the
credit of witnesses involved In contra
diction and impeachment. Throughout
the defendants trial. the jury looked
him In the face, as did the court. The
court and jury had all the witnesses,
both for and against him, before them.
They had decided advantage over US,
and possessed such opportunities as we
cannot have. Many facts and circum-
stances which from the nature of
things cannot be reproduced, exercise
upon the judge and jury controlling
influence in resolving question In
volved In controversy and doubt.
I'VE regret to have to make the rec
ommendation we do in this case, but see
but one course to pursue. The COVER
nor Is recommended and advised not to
pardon the said W. J. Colts"
1t is said that Mr. Colts had built up
hopes that he would be pardoned, and
that he Is bitterly disappointed over the
action Of the board. His attorneys. be-
sides seeking pardon. are trying to Sc
cure for their client a new trial. They
will now, of course, devote their entire
energies In that direction.