Gainesville daily sun. (Gainesville, Fla.) 190?-1938, 1909-03-24
rHE POWER or HORSE SENSE.

excellent editorial ON the above sub
joct.
We doubt whether more ignorant
jury was ever found than that which
tried Col Cooper and his son and
John -. Sharpe for murder We
doubt &c ever a case was decided that
presented more difficulties. We oV.
pected a mistrial We believed that
partisanship was so high In Ten.
nessee that Il would obscure the
evidcncc-that the Carmack men
would be- for conviction while the Pat.
terson men would De- for acquittal
The conflict Of evidence also furn.
ished grounds for expecting a mis-
trial The witnesses for the State
made out case Of deliberate murder
while the witnesses for the defense
made out a case Of self-dcfcnse. II
was the work Of the jury to weigh con.
hiCting evidence and decide what
statements were true and what we're
not; and II the jury decided that the
statements Of the witnesses for the
prosecution were true and the con.
hicting statements of the witnesses
for the defense were untrue. this de-
cisiOn must have been without a rea-
sOnable doubt, for II there was a
reasonable doubt IL was the duty OF
the jury to acquit.
Putting aside the testimony OF the |
defendants, there was other testimony |
that showed that Senator Carmack |
fred first. We do not mean 20 say he
did, for there was other testimony |
that he did not fire a ball. But the
testimony of two surgeons agreed that
he could not have fired after receiving
either OF the three wOunds-that
either of them would have been in.
stantly fatal A pistol with two
chambers empty was found near Sen
itOr Carmacks body. The jury Ger
ainly had no easy task. even putting
aside the bitterness of the partisan
ship that divides the people Of the
county.
The jury acquitted Sharpe. the
east influential Of the defendants II
,ould not have done otherwise The
evidence against him was not suffi-
'ient to prove guilt At best il was
'nly sufficient to create a strong sus-
'iciOn OF guilt.
The jury convicted Col Cooper and
Robin Cooper OF murder in the second
Iegree. This was evidently a cOmprO-
Mise According to law they should
ave been acquitted If their guilt was
lot proved beyond a reasonable
Oubt. and II IL was they should have
'een convicted Of murder in the first
egree. The mildeT verdict. though
ar from mild. shows that some men
N the jury were not satisfied beyond
doubt OF their guilt. Such cOmprO-
misses are common with juries-as
ommOn with the most intelligent as
With the most ignorant.
Without expressing either approval
r disapproval OF the verdict-for such
could not be intelligent
rom one who did not hear the evil
ence-we say that these twelve men
put aside all prejudice. con-
idered the case intelligently and did
What they thought was right A jury
Of the twelve most intelli-
ent men In the United States. II they
lad been unprejudiced. would prob
bly, have found the same verdict and
ave arrived at their conclusions by
he same process Of reasoning.
And this goes TO show the differ
nee between book learning and
horse sense. a man may have one
nd not the other Book learning
nay assist a man 10 live without Ger
ain kinds Of physical labor but IL
oes not guarantee that a man has q
more brain. Is a better reasoner. b =
more accurate In his conclusions than
mother man who does not know one r.
atter from another II Is not rarely. II
.ut often the case. that the well-cdu- %
ated man Is the mental inferior Of d
.is illiteratc neighbOr. lie who con- d
iders illiteracy in the South a. even y
# a lack al brains. would do we'll 90
.ot measure his powers against the