The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-08

general opinion that the testimony was of the flimsiest character, and, as a rule, given by men absolutely unquali- fled to form opinions. The autopsy was ciumsily and imperfectly perform ed, and the conduc. of the coroners seems to have been deplorable. inas- much as two of them testified at the time of the autopsy that the man died of old age and that no morbid appear ances were found in the body and as subsequently, for pay, they went upon 1 the witness stand and urged the theory ] of chloroform poisoning.
 Had chloroform been used. as was testified to by the miserable creature
 who is supposed to have turned States evidence, its detection would have been
 Ia matter of very great difficulty, even
 were the body in proper state, but
 what can be said of experiments and
 appearances made where cnbalming i had been undertaken?
 | There was much more quick sympa- | thy manifested by the public In Mrs. Maybricks predicament than Patrick ] got during his first few years of tn-
 generation, great part of this, to be l sure, being due to the fact that the
 woman was an American, national feeling being used as means of bringing pressure upon the home sec retary fore clemency. Without this she
 could not have hoped for even an hours postponement in the carrying out of sentence Her life was not
 saved by legal processes and the invo-
 cation of technicalities based upon precedent or interpretation, whereas Patrick has preserved himself solely
 by his method, reprieve having been
 brought into play only during the last l few weeks.
 1 Patrick has carried the personally
 conducted criminals defence to what several members of the district attor-
 neys staff consider a rednctio ad l absurdum. He Is the only defendant | found guilty of murder in the first de-
 gree in New York State. who ever per
 sonally served upon the warden at Sing Sing a protest against being kept
 In solitary confinement pending the ap- peal of his case from the sentence of i the trial court He Is the sole con demned murderer who after many
 months in a death cell, has been | brought out once more into the sun 1 light, and, dissatisfied with the effort
 of his own counsel. has argued in his own behalf dlspassionately. clearly. and
 with no recourse to any but legal logic. There is something almost alluringiy dramatic in this at least courageous attempt of the criminal fly struggling g i to be freed from the meshes of the law
 spider, but It is not believed that an
 added fear of the statute books Is en-
 gendered by 1t. Many members of the l bar feel that there exists among cer-
 tain portion of the criminal classes, | especially in New York city. a practi-
 cal contempt for capital punishment,
 ces on record where the convicted man
 has escaped death, frequently having obtained even his freedom.
 The recent trial of Hugh Watt in Great Britain is another case that,
 doubtless. would be dragging its weary | IA l part of a court proceeding in this country. Watt was a former member of parliament charged with melting hired agents to murder his divorced wife The murder was not accom- plished, but he was found guilty by a
 jury. and is now undergoing five years penal servitude. The judge, in
 summing up. declared that the testi-
 mony before him was the most extra ordinary to which he had ever listened | Improbable as was the whole story, however, he thought it was equally i'm probable that any one could eonooet
 and swear to such charges. The ques-
 tion of the sanity of the defendant was
 not raised, so the jury had nothing to i do but find verdict, which they did,
 after being out nearly two hours. | One could imagine how, with such a dubious judicial charging and the
 many cOntradicting features of testi- l hoHyi Inls case III the Onlteu states might last for years. skilful attorneys being easily able to find legal loopholes
 through which an escape from actual performance of sentence might be sue l cessfully sought. Watt was arrested
 August IS, 1905. and sentenced Decem
 Der 21. The celebrated Bleak House
 case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce may re- 1 fleet, or may have reflected, the Eng
 fish handling of chancery complica-
 tions. but no Dickcnsian criticism is
 to be hurled at British conduct of cap- ital cases. What we call Jersey jus
 tics" is the rule, not the exception. In l Great Britain