New-York tribune., 1905-01-22

staring her out of countenance and bringing
fangly to that her every expression
movement is a subject of comment criticism.
In these circumstances what mortal woman
have her wits about her. or for that matter in the
end much what happens to her. as long as it is
a release from what is trial in a sense which the
theory of the law under which she is arragned surely
could have intended.
But aside from the lack of opportunity amounting
to denial to communicate with her counsel,
unless she be than ordinarily acute of hearing,
the prisoner is far removed from the witnesSsand
that, attentive she may be, she is unable to hear
than part of the testimony, and of course 1t IS
permitted her to inform herself by inquiry from
those about her. Candidly what can be said of such
a procedure except that it is a relic of barbarism,
virtual denial of justice, and that almost forces
the inference that the object of these hndrances and
debarments is to handicap the prisoner as to make
the presentation of proofs of innocence difficult as
possible.
In the light and by way of contrast to English
modes of procedure, what among many other features
claimed my attention and extorted my admiration
the assured directneSS of manner OF counse-due
in part doubt to the natural American way of doing
things, but also in small degree L imagine, to
feeling their part of having complete possession OF
all factors in the case 1t seemed to me an obvious
deduction from this that the entire structure
had been built up bit by Bit by themselves at least
under their immediate supervision, and not by some
outsider whom they dependent, as counsel are
in England. There custom imposes that the case be
and hence frequently happens that counsel whom
the of the trial virtually rests has never seen
his client until he face face with him her
court and then his dignity does not permit him
communicate with her except through her solicitor.
Indeed, is this, that Sir Charles Russell
he later Lord Russell of Killowen) my chief counsel
in a statement in which he expressed his belief in my
innocence. makes it point to say that perpexed
by the instructions in the brief took what
unusual step: went to her prior to her trial,
that he goes to say he might hear somewhat of my
story from my lips and make study of my
character.
1t is safe that in America counsel seldom under
take the trial of important without first having
famarized themselves with all its essential details by
personal with their client and this would
say naturally, than should be- as an ncOm
petent negligent solicitor might easily lead counsel
into committing irretrievabe blunders While it is
fact that Sir Charles Russell visited in Walton
jail lit an Out-of-the-way place in the suburbs
of LiverpOOD before the on, it is also
fact and far more noteworthy, that in the whole
course of my trial never consulted by either my
solicitor counsel and much of the time, therefore,
| had only the Vaguest sort of notion of what
going in the arena below my perch
Did it concern me? Yes, those my solicitors
and counsel engaged to defend against the
terrible charges; but as to what they doing
going to do l had much of the time only the
most hazy ideas. And how important nay necessary,
to a verdict in my favor a close relation between
client and counsel need not be pointed out to any
reader of my book, who has followed with attention
the testimony reproduced therein Much of this
evidence" was made up of wholly unfounded
picons of supposed intentions of looks of turns of
the wrist, of words from their context and
of other seeming tres which under the rules of
evidence interpreted by American courts $50 l
credibly informed) would have been vigorously
cluded but in the way my trial was conducted these
formed almost the backbone of the against me
especially as it tried" by the public at large.
1t really the publics prejudiced and envenomed