Hattiesburg daily news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-06
An Editorial Worth Reading.

10 pltau tnaC tnu prove II as IttS a. II
ways been done heretofore. Bet when
a man commits murder without any H
legal justification he must look around
for some other defense. The rulings
in the Thaw and the Loving cases
supply all that he needs. Most muir
derers have near female relatives,
such as have heretofore been taught
by criminal lawyers to sit by the ac-
cused at the trial and told to weep |
at intervals in order to affect the, in
telligent jurymen. This has its effect
in many cases, but it does not always
secure an acquittal. Hereafter diff
ferent use can be made of such of
them as are willing to swear that
they have been drugged and outraged.
The story that they tell may be i'm
probable and their statements may
easily be contradicted by hundreds of
witnesses, but under the. new doctrine
the contradiction will not be permitted
if they swear that they told the story
to the accused Immediately before the
killing as in the Loving case, OF sew
eral years before, as in the Thaw case.
Loving acted at once and recovered
his mind at once; Thaw brooded over
the matter for some years, lived with
the alleged victim as his mistress,
then married her and finally became
insane just long enough to kill the
person alleged to have committed the
4 outrage. He also became sane again
as soon as the killing was over. As
it is admitted by the court in each
case that the men killed may have
been perfectly innocent, 1t is remark
able how quick the shedding of limo
cent blood will cure man of insan-
\ ity.
The Thaw case is to be tried again
and we need not enlarge. on that. The
Loving case, however, Is settled, so
far as the courts can settle 1t, and II
is pertinent to inquire how, under the
! doctrine of that case. anybody is to be
convicted of murder. II man is an
orphan and has no female relatives
that he can identify, he may have tc
get married before he can safely kill
, his enemy. But he may marry a fal
+ len woman as Thaw did and proceed
to wreak his vengeance. No matter
! what was the real reason of the kill
, ing, it will be competent for him tt
, prove that his wife, or some othel
near relative, told him a story which
: drove him crazy. and this story canno
. be contradicted. The jury will &C
: quit him, not because they believe HI
was crazy, but because they thinl
! the victim deserved to die. The in
7 sanity plea is a mere dodge to get IL
t the story which, though 1t may b.
3 wholly false, insures an acquittal.
ii No man is allowed by law to take
/ vengeance into his, own hand. 1t II
/ pretty well settled. however, that 1
/ jury will not punish man for killing
! the destroyer of his home. But befor'
E a man is killed, certainly his gull
4 ought to be established beyond rea
E sonable doubt. as the guilt OF hi
s slayer must be before he can be cor
v victed. The new doctrine is that lie
e however improbable, is just as good a
e the truth to justify the killing Of
/ man as matter of private vengeance
IS but the homicide cannot be punishe
/ If anybody says that an improbabl
t story was told him some years befor
c the killing. The acceptance Of such
r. construction Of the law is nearly equi'
s. alent to the repeal Of all laws again'
d murder.