The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-04-14

good deeds were untoundej, the friends
Of Judge Favrot claim justification II
the declaration that He avenged with
death deadly affront to his family.
If the alleged afront was so grew
Gus as to demand the deliberate killing
OF DR.. Aldrich, his schoolmate, his class
mate, his chun1 and his friend in man
hood, why should there be SO mysterious
concealnent OF this affront:
If Judge Favrot's claim OF just1hca-
tion in the "unwritten law" could be
sustained why should he not have court
ed vindication by jury OF his peers
i. a court of Justice and of law?
In Louisiana no man need apprehend
the verdict OF a trial jury if his act be
justified in the unwritten law.
The recent acquittal of the Strother
brothers in Virginia, who shot and killed
the man who had deceived and dlshon-
ored their sister, is a case in point to
sustain the unwritten law. Indeed, 1t is
the rule all over the South that no man
hall be adiudged guilty who shall pro-
tect the sacredness of his home, his
mother, wife, daughter or sister; there
fore the question of justification must be
made plain, as it was in the case of the
Strother brothers. It will not be IN
sisted that the failure Of grand jury to
find a bill is justification of the act OF
the individual released from contlne-
men. on a charge of murder or for other
crimes. In the instant case. the failure
OF the grand jury to indict, if unexpect-
ed. is not surprising. Grand juries have
not infrequently failed in their plain
duty by yielding to influences and pleads
ings which should have been brushed
aside.
One of the striking features of this
case is in the consideration of the fact
that i'll February of the present year
Judge Favrot was indicted by the grand
jury then sitting, but the indictment was
quashed on legal technicalities. And an
other feature of this inquisition is that
the present grand jury returned no true
bill'' against Congressman Favrot, and
a true bill against Frank Leer negro,
for the murder of his wife.
There is no question as to the killing
~ lj-,oi, ~ I,Jra I.o,--ct the
eyes of the law and of the people, the
grand iury's duty was plain and direct
With evidence sufficient to establish the
fact that Judge Favrot had killed DR..
Aldrich. a bill should have been pre-
sented to the court. in which Judge FAY
rot could have been vindlcated on sus
tanning his plea Of justification. As it
is, Judge Favrot is unrelieved of the
stigma connected with his killing, his
victim being his schoolmate, his class
mate, his chum and his friend in man
hood. A trial by jury would have
made clear and removed whatever doubt
may linger in the public mind,
Perhaps there has been some misun-
derstanding; some misinterpretation Of
remarks credited to Dr. Aldrich, who
being dead can not speak in explanation
or in extenuation of reports which led
to homicide, aggravatingly deplorable
All. if the terrible deed could be re-
called! However, the purpose of this ar,
ticle is simply to emphasize the fact that
grand juries are not authorized Or en-
to pass judgment in case, i'll
which their sympathy may be enlisted.
1t is the solemn duty of grand juries to
be governed by the facts and the written
law, and to find bills accordingly.
Did this grand jury lack in the in
formation of the facts which led to the
Indictment of Judge Favrot in Febru-
airy? 1t may be borne i'll mind that
The failure Of this grand jury to indict
does not relieve or give assurance that
Judge Favrot may not be indicted by
another grand jury. Therefore, viewed
n any guise presented, the action of the
grand jury in not finding bill against
Judge Favrot is construed as being sim
ply a travesty of justice.
Golfers Weekly: Hail, Kargon I'll