The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-02-18
The Peremptory Challenge
Bill.
Continued From Page Three.)

considerable contest. further debate
on the bill was limited to one hour.
Opponents of the bin fought for un-
limited debate. Mr. Woodland. of
Wilson. opposing the bill. said il did
not fleet ninety-fve per cent of
criminal cases tried. rs It only refer
fed to canital cases. In cases Of
homicide, the solicitor by drawing A
bill for less than murder in the sec
end degree, could challenge every
man who was not a free holder, and
had two peremptory challenges, While
, the defendant had only four. He
proposed an amendment that in all
.rminal trials the defendant should
have the opening or closing argu-
ment rs the judge in his discretion
might decide.
mr.. Feimster said he thought the
recommendation made by the Cover
challenges and the defendant tcn
was q good suggestion. But tie
committee had seen lit 10 amend the
original bill, making ii -four to ten.
Judge Graham made an carpost
speech in favor Of the Dill saying
{ was not intended TO be cruef or
boodthirsty to the criminal, but
while humane TO him, it was Just TO
society and safe for the protection of
human life. The only protection TO
life in this day of civilization and
advancement WAS equal Justice TO
both sides: the. snan accused OF crime
ana the publS Yeace alleged to be
outraged. a human life taken by Vlo-
'ent MAJ der. or q woman rulned by
| infamous outrage.
Robertson, Of Guilford, said he had
rather see the Graham bill defeated
than to see the amendment offered
by Mr.. Murphy and Mr.. Woodland
adopted. They would entirely nulilty
the good effect of the original bill.
Reading from a newspaper Of a
murder committed in Wilson yester-
lay, when Il man went into a factory.
and being ordered out. shot down
lnd killed the superintendent. he
| said that If the gentleman from VIII
! son could get his amendment adopted,
when that guilty wretch came up Tor
| trial in II Wilson court. the lawyer
appearing for him could have the
| asst speech before the jury, and al
| though there might not be a shred OF
| evidence or other eXtcnuatinG cir
! cumstance to excuse that horrible
| 1old hlooded murder the jury "onld
| be so appealed to, to consider the
| wife or children of the defendant, rs
| % forget the dead man, his wife ana
! children and the safety and rrotec-
| ton Of human life.
Mr.. Murphy, Of Buncombc. follow
! ed in advocacy OF tho bill. declaring
| that the victim of q murderer or 4
| ravisher, was as much entitled TO con
| sideIation and equal justice as the
surviving law breakers.
Mr.. stewart, Of IIarnett, said that
| rs the law stood now, the state BY
| having the right TO stand ten men
| to the foot of the panel and four
peremptory challenges, with an addi-
| = tor r l.
ment OF the solicitor, already had
| the advantage Of the defendant who
| was allowed twenty-threc percmptory
| challenges. Besides this the defend
ant labored under an additional dis
| advantage from the fact that when
! homicide occurred, no matter WHAT
| the DroVocation or Justification, the
newspapers almost without exception
| came out in glowing headlines and
| blood curdiing reports, OF murder,
| without stopping to consider That all
| killings were not murder under the
/ law and all persons who were SO uH
| fortunate as to be engaged in Such
| IN affair were not necessarily Sullly
| He meant no reelection on the press
! but it was we'll known fact that no
! matter what subsequent facts We're
published, the first account read by
| the public made the strongest impress
| sion. Besides 80 per cent of persons
accused of capital crimes are poor
| Wretches not able to employ lawyer,
and the law itself recognized that it
| was fair to human life TO allow him
! 10 be tried without a lawyer, and fur
nished enc FOR him, who appeared
| without pay in behalf of fair and
| impartial trial.
| He sent forward an amendment, to
| the effect that when a defendant adj
nits the killing and thereby assumes
the burden of proof, he shall pc al
| lowed the concluding speech to the
! jury.
Mr.. Butler recounted several mis-
carriages of justice under the present
| law, giving the defendant every ad-
vantage due the State and offered an
amendment to the pending bill.
! Mr.. Britt, of Robson. concluded
| the debate in an imprisoned speech
against the bill, saying that if the bill
passed, in ninety nine cases out OF
| one hundred, innocent men might be
| convicted of crime.
The amendment by Stewart, OF
! Rowan, giving defendant the closing
argument when the killing was ad-
mitted, was lost by q vote of 81 10 So.
The amendment of Murphy. OF
Buncombe, substituting twelve chai-
enges for defendant IN place OF ten
was ADOPTED without division.
The amendment by Woodland of
Wilson. irving the judge power TO
grant defendant opening or conclud-
ing argument was defeated by vote
of 81 to 81. (While this vote was
being taken many attorneys opposed
to the bill were saying to members