Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1905-01-27
MccUE TO HANG.

Richmond TO the Gazette, the Court 0
Appeals yesterday refused to grant wri
OF error and supersedeas upon thu
supplementary petition Of the sttor
neys of ex-Mayor Samuel j. McCue o
Charlottesville. A half hour later 1
newspaper man called upon the com
demned man in his cell at the .Charlottes
vile Jail and found him writing lette
to his aunt, Mrs. Marshall Dinwiddie
In reply to the query II he cared to heal
the news from RicAmsnd, McCue said
''Well, | suppose they refused the pc
tition for hearing"
He was told that the court had re-
fused it. and for moment he was ST.
lent, his lips twitching nervously. Then
he said: "Well, will get justice in
heaven"
be wept for q while, and then, turn
ing TO the letter, which was in the nature
OF final communication, be read it to
the visitor, interrupted at times by bis
tears. The letter was constructed large
ly OF Scripural quotations and coucbed
in affectionate and religious phrases. Il
made no disclosures, and was more in
the form OF homily than a commnui.
cation. This read, he repeated his fire.
quent phrases that he did not want any
thing he had said reported to the news
papers. Throughout the interview the
prisoners manner was that of a mar
not surprised by the terrible news, al
though he has within the week express
ed the expectation that a new tria
would be granted him.
The failure of the court to grant the
petition skaters McCue's last hope, fol
Gov. Montague, when he granted re
spite to him announced that he would
take no further action in the case, anC
there is every reason to believe he viii
be hanged two weeks from today. Tn,
court declares that the evidence points
with unerring certainty to McCue as th'
man guilty of most atrocious homicide
Judge Keith's opinion, in which th,
members OF the court concarred, is sum
med up as follows: 'In obedience t.
mandate of statute, and in strict accor
dance with established precedent, having
given careful consideration to petitions
and record, and being of opinion tina
no error is shown to prejudice OF accused
We abide by order entered at former dsl
of the term, and deny writ of error"
As to the merits of the case, the opin
ion says:
''No one can read the petitions for ;
writ Of error in this case without beinl
satisfied that the accused had every ad
vantage that could accrue to him from
the efforts of astute and able counsel.
The evidence precludes every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence, and points will
unerring certainty to the guilty man The
record discloses a homicide remarkable
only for its atrocity, save in the fact thai
it was committed by member of the
profession Of the law, who had been in.
trusted by his ielow-citizens With re-
sponsible Office, and that the victim was
his wife.
Concerning exception made regarding
qualifications of jurors and acceptance oil
one who said he had read newspapers
and formed an opinion based on
reports, the opinion says: "The
trend OF recent decisions is in the direc-
ton OF limiting, rather than extending,
the disqualification of Jurors by rea.
son of mere opinion. Whenever tho mind
receives has an effect upon it. By the
diffusion of education the State hopes to
create higher citizenship and to fad
the means of REFRESHING crime and vices
but ii the courts take an extreme posi-
ton upon this subject and hold that
every opinion shall work disquali6ca-
ton for service as juror the admins
tration of justice will be confied not to
the most intelligent, but to the most
ignorant of our citizens. No man can
read the rigid examination to which this
juror (5tockdelD was subjected without
being impressed by his fairness, with
his desire to deal justly by the prisoner,
and with his conscientious purpose to
discharge his duty as a citizen"
Touching the alleged inconsistent
statements made by "Willie" McCue,
son of the accused, the court says that
the law is so comprehensive that it war
rants action of the trial court in the pro-
ceeding. Referring to the reading Of
the newspapers by the jury, the court
says:
''rhe case under consideration is far
stronger than those cited. The court,
in the presence OF the prisoner and his
counsel, at the instance OF the jury,
permitted them to have access to news
papers under the rules which it prescrib-
ed. 1t does not appear that the limits
imposed by the court were exceeded or
that the prisoner was prejudged by what
occurred. But however that may be, be
had no right to sit mute, prepared to
abide by the results If they were favor
able, or to make objections If they were
sverse. We think it the safer and bet
ter practice to exclude newspapers from
the jury"