Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1907-03-14
THURSDAY, MARCH, IA, 1907
THE sTROTHERs ACQUITTED.

THE STROTHERS ACQUITTED.
The acquittal of the Strother broth
crs at Culpeper, Va, is not unexpect-
ed conclusion of the trial which has
been in progress for some days past.
The defendants shot to death Bywat-
ers, their brother-in-law, after COM
polling him to marry their sister,
whom he had shamefully wronged
and treated with brutal pitileness.
Nothing can be said in e1tenuation
of Bywaters' conduct. He had be-
traycd trust imposed upon him by
his position of gentleman, friend and
kinsman, and, after inflicting the
greatest humiliation one human be-
ing can inflict upon another, had ex-
hibited callous indifference. Judge
Harrison, who presided with so much
dignity and ability in the case, is re-
ported as having said to the jury at
close of the trial that they had follow
ed the precedent of American juries
generally in rendering their verdict,
and added that the Court was satisfied
with the decision, his words leaving
the impression that he considered it
right that the accused should have
been acquitted. In this opinion, if
it was entertained by the Judge, a
great many people will concur. The
unwrittcn law" which Judge Har-
rison took pains to impress upon the
jury during the progress of the case,
has no place in the Virginia Code;
nevertheless, it seems to have the
force of law in Virginia. 1t seems to
be jury law there and has also been
declared many times to be in force
in other States by verdicts that have
been rendered.
Notwithstanding the sentiment that
seems to uphold the verdict, there are
many ool-headed and prudent peo-
pie who will view the case from the
standpoint of written or common law.
Some will think that after Bywatcrs
had made rcparation for his conduct
as far as it could be done by marriage
and after the Strother brothers had
taken him by the hand and promised
to forget the past, some other act
worthy of death shouldEhave been
shown in order to justify the verdict.
Some will think that the defense fail
ed to prove any such act; that his
desire to leave his bride Immediately
after the marriage, presumably for
a temporary absence, did not justify
the inhiction of the death penalty.
Is there any statute of limitations in
such cases? Suppose Bywaters had
remained with his bride for the time,
but a week, a month or year after
the marriage he had left her and ap-
piled for a divorce, would they have
shot him then or would they have
been justified by jury in having
done SO? The person most cruelty
wronged, it seems, by the slaughter
of Bywaters was the sister OF the men
who killed him. II the man had
been permitted to live, even if he had
left her, she would have been saved
from the ordeal she was put to after
his death, which cannot fail to cast
shadow over the life that she is yet
to live. In his argument before the
jury one Of the counsel for the pris-
oners referred to precedent in the
Bible, where two sons Of Jacob put
to death man who had wronged
their sister, and he said that this act
was not rebuked. He is mistaken in
this statement, for we are told that
Jacob on his deathbed condemned
the act and punished it. Cursed be
their anger" he said, for it was
fierce, and their wrath, for it was
cruel; I will divide them in Jacob
and scatter them in Israel. "-Editor-
ial of the Baltimore Sun, March 8.