The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-09
CENsURrNG RAND.

Newspapers andt newspaper writers are still scoring Mir. Rand. District Att torney, for the methods adopted by him in the prosecution of Nan Patterson. The New Haven Register, one of the most conservative and least excitable of all our contemporaries, declares that his attitude was brutal and fero- cious." It details his manner of con- ducting the trial, and criticises both his attitude towards her and his lan- guage in addressing the jury. Mir. Francis Hopkinson Smith, an author and artist of note. in communication to The New York Times uses this laa- guage:
 MT. Rand's conduct of the case was brutal and inhuman to the last degree. Nowhere, outside of a Spanish bull- ring, would a spectator have witnessed so coarse a form of cruelty, as the girl who by every law of common sense and common decency possessed the right to, be considered innoceat until she had been proved guilty.
 These are fair examples of the criti- cisms of newspapers and writers who
 
 nal class. The very best newspapers in the Union write in pointed condem- nation of the methods adopted by the prosecution in what appears 70 have been a frantic effort to convict her. These criticisms are not because she Is a woman, but are based on the broad principle that the course of the prose- cution was unfair, unjust and inhu- man. MT. Rand apparently was not trying to prove her guilty, but de- clared that she committed the crime and put it on the defense to establish her innocence. In plain words. instead of relying on the evidence he seemed determined to convict her by the fierce ness of his charges and the brutality of his language and manners.
 As we have said before, we nave no positive opinion to express as to the guilt or innocence of the accused wo- man. She may have killed Young but 1t has not been proven, and until that is done it is certainly the proper course ito consider her innocent. The accused in all cases is entitled to that consid- eration, and no fair-minded official will act on any other theory. But that is not the main point. Even if the proof of her guilt had been established beyond doubt she was still entitled to something better than the brutal lam guage used by the prosecution.
 We have no doubt that the jury was influenced by MT. Rand but in a way he did not expect. The New York Daily Press seems to have gotten the inside facts concerning the way the jury stood, and at no time was there any of the jurors in favor of d Lonvic- tion for murder. The nearest that they came to it was when seven of them favored a verdict of maIslaugh- ter and five were for acquittdl, and that was the way it ended. Plainly, however, there was no more ground for a verdict of manslaughter than there was for one of murder. The only theory upon which manslaughter could have been based was that there was a struggle for possession of the pistol and that it went off in the struggle and killed Young, but there was no testimony to establish this theory. Tn our judgment those jurymen who stood out for the manslaughter verdict did so as a sort of compromise with their consciences. They thought a crime had been committed and as no one but Nan was charged with it there .'hould be some punishment placed on Ter. It was poor theory but probably the one on which they acted. That IS no de- fense for Rand, however,