New-York tribune., 1905-01-22

important question-and by that term do mean
a question of what right and wrong moral point Of
view but questions which human enters and IN
which you rely your knowledge Of human nature
in determining the resolution you arrive at. We
consider this not in unfeeng spirit-far from
but spirit of people resolved 70 solve by intellectual
means intellectual problem of great difficulty
You have the first place consider-far from me
to exclude try get others exclude from minds
what myself vivdly conscious of-the evidence in
this matter think every human being this must
vvdly Of what you have had
better say you ought not TO consider for fear YOU
might consider much the horrible the INQUIRY
in which you engaged feel that it dreadful thing
that you deliberately considering whether
that of really horribly dreadful as
poor wretch who stood in the dock Of
If she IS guilty am saying my object IS rather to heghn
feeling of solemnity of the circumstances and way
prevent you from feeling you do feel and you ought
to feel sic] could good many other things about
awful of the charge; but do think be
necessary do any thing Your hearts
you what is for person go administering poison %
helpless sick [when there particle of evidence
associatng anyone with the administration Of poisonI
The person who could do such thing that de
of the least trace of human feeling
PROM JUDGE DAVIS CHARGE
If you entertain any of guilt the defendant
you acqit So. you any doubt con
cerning material facts concerning the guilt
defendant your duty give defendant
benefit of that doubt
With the conclusions nothing 70 do
The jury in making these conclusions Of fact
No has the power interfere with this right Il
jurors duty to make such conclusion.
1t is proper say what to say should
influence you arriving verdict the It
may be that of you think that you have
nkng OF the courts opinion OF this trial II b.
dismiss that opinion your nlnc
and bring verdict solely the law and the evidence
The life or death of the defendant S al stake.
You bring a verdict of guilty unless you
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt The defendant
titled presumption of innocence from the [ery beginning
of her trial to the that her fate put your hands
The burden of proof the prosecution and
of guilt attaches to her from the fact OF her Indictment
In closing this comparison of procedures I wish TO
express my deep regret that the English mode Of
conducting criminal trials is likely To undergo
any important change in the future, the
mission appointed to report the Beck case has
advised against the institution OF criminal
of appeal which in effect that the extraordinary
powers and modes of conduct of English Judges SO
often fraught with unjust results, in wise VIII be
abridged. With authentic record of thirty
fragrant misCarrages of justice within fifty years the
late Lord Esher surely justified IN strongly advO
eating a court of criminal appeal, The London
Times" of August II, 1880, supported the views
pressed by him and by Lord Fitzgerald in the following
conclusive language;
"A court of appeal Lord Esher sketches It, would
not be open to the objections which be fairly
urged against present informal method of pro-
cedure. The Home Secretary quasiCourt of ap-
peal is as Lord Fitzgerald remarks, not a Judge
and has not the power of a judge. The
Judgment pronounced by strong court of criminal
appeal, such Lord Esher's letter suggests would
do more to satisfy the public mind than the best
efforts of the Home Secretary could possibly do
The reform Lord Esher advocates has been long called
for and Lord Fitzgerald did well to press it the
Government. What the public feel IS that
they would rather have the fabty of trained judges
than the fa1libiity of individual sitting without
any of the apparatus with which court of law is
enabled detect truth from faIsehOOd and perhaps
uncOnsciOusly confusing the PrerOgative of mercy
with Justice