The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-06-14

Oh state VS. I1ernu0n, lUt W. NJ leS Ssitt'
1.-THE Indictment for capital offence raises
strong presumption of the prisoners
guilt, and he ought not to have bail I'M
less he alleges and proves to the salts
faction of the judge that he IS not guilty
The law intends that persons solemnly
accused OF capital crimes, when the evl-
dence tends strongly to prove their guilt,
shall not have opportunity to flee and
escape justice"
Now, take the testimony offered by the
defence. If we accept the statement
made by the witness Simms, as true,
then, at the time the fatal shot was fired,
the deceased was near the middle of the
street between the curbing and the car
track, with his back turned from the de-
PENDANT. And the testimony of DR. Knox
which is as clear as bell, establishes, we
think, beyond doubt, that 1t was the
second shot which took effect and caused
the death of the deceased. This was muir
der, for, even though the deceased may
have stricken prisoner with his left hand
as Simms testified, all the authorities
agree that the law is so jealous of human
life, that it win not permit even blow
to be stricken in a spirit of revenge, and
used and death ensues, it is murder
Ned Barnes said when he arrived in
front of the Government building there
were two other vehicles on the same side
of the street, between his vehicle and the
Capitol, and that shortly after he drove
up, he saw Mr.. Skinner strike Mr. Hay
wood and start across the street, when
prisoner fired twice The witness Rogers
says that he was up stairs in the Govern
ment building, within eight feet Of the
front window when he heard the first
shot, and that the second shot fired be-
fore he reached the window. He went
down and asked Ned Barnes about the
shooting and Ned told him that he saw
nothing until the first shot fired and then
he turned and saw Mr.. Skinner going
across the street and after the second
shot, he staggered a little and fell with his
head across the street cartrack. Rogers
is a witness relied on by the defence. He
was seeking information. He went to
another witness brought here by the de-
fence; and that witness-Ned Barnes
while the whole matter was fresh in his
mind-speaking to a man of his own
eolor-before he had any motive to state
anything except the facts as they occur
red, told him that he saw nothing until
his attention was arrested by the firing of
the first shot. when he turned his head
and saw deceased going across the street,
and prisoner fired the second shot. So
we contradict Ned Barnes in two material
points, for he appears to be the only wit
ness, on either side. who placed three
vehicles in front of the Government
building, at the time the shooting occur
red. The witness Hocutt proves rather
an unsayory reputation, and Lawyer
Schmitz was rather unfortunate in select
ing such a man to show him around the
city. They We're standing one hundred
and fifty feet, or more, away, from where
the difficulty, of which they testified, oc-
CURED, and yet they tell US that their
attention was attracted by the loud talk
ing and gesticulating of prisoner and de-
ceased 1t is singular that none of this
was either heard or seen by Mr.. Willis
Briggs, who was talking to Mr. simms,
only twenty feet away nor by Mr. Pike,
who was near Haywood who had just
passed him, when he heard the first shot;
nor by Mr.. Simpson, who was directly
across the street, in front of the Var
borough House: nor by Mr.. Gwaltney,
who saw the first shot fired, nor by Mr..
Wilson, the bright sixteen year old boy,
whose testimony must have impressed all
who heard it that he was telling the
truth
Now / have endeavored to show your
Honors that taking the testimony of the
defence offered TO prove that there was
an alteration? Has that fact been salts
factorily established? Have not their wit
nesses contradicted each other? Have we
not shown by witnesses of unimpeachable
character-by Logan Terrell, Mr.. Simp-
son, Mr.. Thompson, Mr.. Gwastncy Mr..
Pike, George Wilson and others that
there was no alteration? Is not this an
issue of fact, upon which your Honors are
asked TO pass? Will your Honors hold
! that this case shall establish a new pre-
cedent in this State and, in disregard of
that provision of the Constitution of the
State from which the court derives its
powers, and in which its duties and juris-
diction are defined, and limited, will your
! Honors usurp the functions of a petit
jury, and become tryers Of issues Of fact?
Can it be that this case shall establish a
precedent which may force any judge of
the supreme COURT 10 IGdNS tHc DCHCu TO
which the people have proudly and con-
fidently looked as the sanctuary of their
liberty and the palladium of their saftey
to try facts which a jury Of twelve men
have from time immemorial been accus-
, toned to weigh and determine? The peo-
. pie have wisely distributed their powers
, and have clothed you with the highest
the right to sit in review of the law af-
fecting their lives, their liberty and their
! property To a jury of twelve men alone
I have they given the right to pass upon
! the credibility of witnesses and find the
, facts involved in an infraction of their
/, criminal laws. We appeal to your Honors
! not to grant bail in this case
, The prisoner has had three months in
) which to apply for bail. He has already
suffered the humiliation Of incarceration
in common jail He had an opportunity
to confront his accusers before that jury
his country to which he appealed when
, arraigned at March court. He then asked
for continuance for the absence Of GER
tain witnesses named in the remarkable
affdvadt which he filed In support of
: his motion. Not one Of those witnesses