The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1907-09-26
Is HOMICIDE JUSTIFIABLE?


Within the past week Oregon has
had three murder trials and the de-
PENDANTS in each case were found not
guilty. c. Fl. Reynolds was declared
to be innocent of any crime in killing
a man whom he found in company
with his wife; Mrs Hamble.on was de-
clared to be entitled to no punishment
for shooting her husband to prevent
him from beating her as had been his
habit, and A. d. Rhonlnus was pro-
nounced mot guilty for killing Tom
Meyers in defense of himself and his
property.
In the two last mentioned cases the
defendants were eXonerated on the the
DRY of self defense and in all the
cases the characters and habits of the
parties whose lives We're forfeited as
the results of their unlawful acts.
played an important part in the con-
sidera,ion of the circumstances of the
affairs ana undoubtedly had much in
nuence with the JurleS.
Had the various individuals, for the
taking of whose lives the defendants
We're tried. been innocent of any often
SEES, there can be no question but what
the verdicts of the juries would have
been different. While the law has pro-
Vided punishments for those who COM
nit crimes, there appears to be a pre-
vailing sentiment with the average man
that there are certain offenseS in which
the injured party is justified in TAX
ing the law in his own hand and the
frequency with which acquittals re-
suit in such cases is cause for serious
reflection. 1t would seem that where
there is ample opportunity for the Of
fender to be turned over to the author
tiles there is hardly any justification
for the injured party to deliberately go
ga cunning" and immunity for so do
ing would to say the least, establish
dangerous precedent. True. there are
circumstances which would mitigate
the offense of taking a human life
but two wrongs never make right,
and it is doubtful if the taking of
human life is ever right The world
might be better off without some in
dividuals but it is questionable if err
ring humanity is qualified to be the
judge in such instances. In comment
ing on the Reynolds case the Oregon
ian has the following editorial which
contains much material for considera-
ton in all similar instances
The defense of Reynolds for shoot
irg his wife's paramour involved no
appeal to the higher law, concerning
which so much pernicious nonsense
has been heard lately. 1t does not
strain he facts of the case much to
say that Reynolds killed Herbert to
prevent the commission of a crime.
This is very different matter from a
homicide to avenge a crime. The law
tolerates a great deal in defense of
home and family; but it justly con-
dennis the same acts when commit
ted in revenge. Reynolds defense was
the law. There was no resort what
ever to the anarchistic doctrine that
an individual may take the punish
rnent of his wrongs into his own hands.
Judge Gantenbein. in his charge to
the jury, drew with admirable clear
ness the distinction which We are maxi
ing here, and il is matter for congrat-
ulation that he did so, for there is al
ways danger that from a case of this
kind the imbecile and the fanatic may
draw some apology for that precious
higher law" of which they are so fond
This distinction appeals. of course
TO everybody of fair intelligence. The
difference between prevention and
vengeance is not one that requires
much acuteness to apprehend But in
his charge. Judge Gantenbein drew
another distinction which the jury may