The Marietta journal and courier. (Marietta, Ga.) 1909-1918, 1909-10-29
JOHN KARPER'S LIFE SAVED,

VINO Kllleu ODeTlN ben helCIl Oh MuTEdy
county, has been committed by Gov
ernor Brown TO life imprisonment.
The only eye witness to the killing
made affidavit that the sheriff, meet
ing Harper on the road at night order
ed him to throw up his hands, failed
to say he was an officer, and began
firing on Harper; that Harper ran two
hundred yards and being still pursued
fred and killed the sheriff.
We, of course, do not know just what
is the truth about this case. Ii Harper
thought he was being attacked for the
purpose OF robbery. or by some enemy,
he had a right to shoot and to kill. II
he knew it was the sheriff he had no
such right. A man who knowingly
kills an officer OF the law in the dis
charge of his duty ought to be hung.
Our purpose in discussing this case
is 30 call atteation to its peculiar feat
ures from a legal standpoint. When
the case went to trial the Solicitor
General explained to the jury just
what he intended to prove, saying he
would introduce the only eye witness
and went ahead to state what that wit
ness would swear to, making out a
very damaging case against Harper.
The Solicitor General, after getting
that impression on the minds of the
jurors failed to put up the witness, and
Harper's lawyer, after what the Solicit
tor General had said, was afraid to put
him up. The evidence of the eye wit
ness, therefore, was never heard by
the jury.
After the triai the eye witness said
that so far from testifying against Har-
per, his testimony would have been in
Harper's favor and on his statement of
what his testimony would have been
the case was appealed.
1t would seem that this was practi.
cally "newly discovered evidence" as
it was new to Harper's lawyer, 1t was
admitted that il it had gone before the
jury different verdict would have
been rendered. Even the judges of the
supreme court were ready to admit
that, but they held that Harper's law
yer ought to have put the eye witness
on the stand when the Solicitor failed
to do so, even wien the Solicitor had
stated in court that the evidence of the
eye witness would be against Harper
Here was clearly a wrong done to
Harper, by an officer OF the court, and
the mans life was at stake. Yet our
highest court refused to right the
wrong because to have done so would
have meant departure from the beaten
path of the courts. A human life
against rule OF the courts. If John
Harper had been hung the RESPONSE
bility would have rested on this rule
OF the courts. The judges knew it.
They felt it. They said they could not
help themselves. They were bound
by settled rules of law. They did,
however, aid in presenting the matter
to the Prison Board and the Governor.
The appeal to the Pardon Board was
refused. Harper's case went to Gov
ernor Brown. Ii was his last chance.
Governor Brown committed the SEN
tence to life imprisonment. He could
not have done otherwise after the
courts had refused to let the only eye
witness testify ian new trial. The
probability is that Harper knew he was
killing the sheriff and if 80 he ought
10 have been aung; but no man ought
to be hung to save the red tape OF
the courts.
We wish 60 add lust line here to
commend the hard. clean, patient and
persistent fight which Hon. Sam Hew-
lett has made 10 save the life of Har-
per. On the merit of his case, alone,
and without any effort TO defeat the
ends Of justice as established by the
testimony. he has won communication
for a man who tor two or three years
has stood in the shadow of the gailows.