St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1907-07-10

anu al doSlotdul, OIdIlOI W ms
claimed jury trial There is no pro
vision for a jury trial in the laws OF TINS
country and never was. The law gave
the Court of First Instance jurisdiction
of the otfense and the right OF a jury
trial had been denied by the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Dorr
case and repeatedly by the Philippine
Supreme Court. | overruled the motion
and am criticised by military othcials
| for it.
"The defendant pleaded former Jeop-
ardy on account of the trial before the
court martial. This question had been
fully gone into the correspondence be-
tween the civil governor and General
Wade about the surrender of Grafton for
trial by the civil court and the claim
denied: The military courts had no
jurisdiction of the offense charged in the
civil court, the same offense was not
charged in the civil court that was tried
before the court martial, the claim was
against repeated decisions OF the United
States Supreme Court, did not feel like
disregarding the law on the subject and
overruled the plea of former jeopardy
(Autrefois acquit). | am greatly critl-
cised for this ruling, but the Philippine
Supreme Court were unanimous IN
approving my ruling on this point and 1t
was correct under the law.
1.-The defendant pleaded justifiable self
defense. Of the facts bearing on this plea
the most glaring and misleading mis-
statements are made in the Army and
Navy Journal article and probably
believed by General Funston and others.
All the evidence in the case was taken
by stenographer and attached to
the case as sent to the Philippine Su-
preme Court and thence to the United
States Supreme Court and reviewed
in those courts, and if my conclusions
of fact are wrong it is the duty OF SAID
courts to correct them. The Philip
pine Supreme Court on April B, 1906,
after reviewing all the testimony in the
case affirmed my conclusions and SEN
tence, this is some vindication OF my
Judgment The case has been heard in
the United States Supreme Court and |
shall look with interest to see IT that
court holds Grafton's act in killing Felix
Villanueva justifable as an act OF self
defense.
1.-The evidence in the case established
that the defendant shot and killed two
Filipinos, employees of the quarter
master department in the afternoon
of July "a, 1904, between 2 and 3
O'Clock at Buena Vista, Island of Guima-
ras, as they were returning for their din
ner along a highway opened for public
travel and while there were no other ma
tives in sight as sworn to by defendant
himself and only two Others according
to the Government testimony. 1t is
not true that they were armed with a
bolo but one of them had an ordinary
sheath knife such as is often carried by
the'natives. Including the handle it was
ten inches long. The other wasunarmed.
Their way led them along the highway
towards ration who was on sentry
duty. His beat was some fifty rods in
length along the open highway, COM
mencing at the guard headquarters past
two quartermaster storehouses to coal
pile near the dock. There was force of
more than twenty soldiers within 80
yards of him and he testified only the
two natives were in sight. He had
loaded rifle and was physically superior
to both the natives. AS they approached
each other they were between the two
storehouses which were about 40 feet
apart and on opposite sides of the road.
He veered from his course to the right
and they veered to the left which would
bring them nearer to him. When ten or
twelve feet apart he says they made
demonstration against him. Florentino
n. |, ,,,h hon no Ha
fendant presented his gun without chal-
lenge on command to halt and as they
turned to run he fired OH Castro the ball
striking the right side of his back and
passing diagonallv through his body
killed him instantly, and he fell in his
track dropping the knife as he fell.
"Villanueva was beside Castro, but
turned to run at the same instant and
continued his flight until cut off by the
wall of the storehouse, then he crouched
down by the wall. He was known to
be unarmed, but while in that position
and some 40 or 40 feet from Grafton the
defendent fired and mortally wounded
him, the ball taking effect in the upper
part of his left shoulder and passing
diagonally through his body and into
the side Of the building at point twenty
inches above the ground. The native
witnesses testified that the defendant
fired two shots while Villanueva was so
crouched by the wall. Defendant testi-
fed that he fired but one, but there were
two distinct bullet holes in the wall OF
the building made at that time and not
over two inches apart. While possible,
it is scarcely conceivable that the shot
which killed Castro passed into the
building so near the shot that killed
Villanueva. 1t was for the murder OF
Villanueva that Grafton was placed on
trial and convicted. His plea that he
killed Villanueva in defending his own
life under the facts before stated was
denied, because if Villanueva had made
an assault upon him the assault had been
repulsed and Villanueva had turned in
flight and gone as far as possible and
assumed an attitude of complete sub
mission and supplication and was known
to be disarmed and alone, while the de-
fendant, man of superior strength, was
armed with loaded rife and at such a
distance from Villanueva that he coulc
effectively use it before Villanueva could
reach him if he attempted to renew the
attack, and was within so or 100 yards
of his comrades who alarmed by thu
shots were already Fastening to hi'
defense.
II did not believe Grafton's safety re
quired him to kill that terrified un
armed, helpless native and fount
it not necessary in self defense
what would YOU say about it