The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-12-29
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30. 1914

AFTER hearing argument for and
against an application to have sentence
OF death changed to life imprisonment,
the court of pardons, Wednesday, de-
cided that Griffin James Johnson, the
colored man who killed a woman near
Riverside, must 60 to the electric chair.
Assemblyman Peacock. who was John
sons lawyer, made an application for
Communication as soon as his client
reached the prison, and he felt sure the
request would be granted for the reason
that the evidence appeared to point to
the fact that the murderer was SO much
under the influence of liquor when he
committed the crime that he was not
capable Of forming the intent necessary
TO make a first degree murder. To the
lay mind the charge of the Judge also
led to that belief, and If q verdict of
murder in the second degree had been
returned there would lot have been any
surprise, although there were few who
felt that such a verdict would have been
the correct one. The jury. in the face
Of strong argument, and with the charge
apparently giving a chance to render a
verdict for a lesser degree than was
found, determined that the man was
guilty Of the high crime. In this the
jury was undoubtedly correct. That the
murder was a deliberate one, the result
Of jealousy without the extenuation of
influence Of liquor-if such is an extern
uation-was apparent to all who heard
the testimony and followed the case.
Mr.. Peacock is not to be censured for
trying to a his client. but the court Of
pardons having given a decision the
subject is closed and the man will re-
ceive the punishment that he certainly
deserves. Burlington county has had
more notoriety in murder cases than is
desirable. Two trials for such an offense
within a month is going a little too
strong. The argument whether capital
punishment deters murderers from COM
hitting crime has been revived with
much vigor since the conviction of the
men mentioned, but while such a penal
ty is imposed by our statutes it should
be enforced. There is nothing in the
two cases cited to cause clemency to be
extended to the criminals.
IF H lawyer who appeared before
the court last January in behalf of
Joseph Couples, elected Freebooter from
Tabernacle township, had used the same
argument that was employed in behalf
Of some gentlemen In court yesterday
there would have been freedom from
the hard feelings that have been engen-
dered, the uncomfortable position that
MI. Couples has occupied would have
been eliminated and there would not have
been charges and countercharges of par.
tisanship that have come up at nearly
every meeting. The cases before the
court yesterday were exactly similar to
those with which Mr.. Couples was con
nected. The 41st section Of the law
which requires candidates to file state
ments of their expenses also provides
that where it is shown that the neglect
to comply with the law was not wilful
i with criminal intent the candidate
may be allowed to retain the Office to
which he was elected. In the cases be-
fore him yesterday, Judge L%ippincott,
after hearing testimony, very promptly
and very properly decided that there
was no necessity to vacate the offices.
There is q doubt in the minds of many
whether q candidate who has not expend-
ed any money is required to make a
statement, but that course seems TO be
necessary as otherwise it would not
be possible to reach some who might
wilfully neglect to comply with the law.
That there was not any wilful intention
in any Of the cases before the court has
been shown conclusively. MI. Couples
was the creature of circumstances and
the Board Of Freeholders has declared its
intention to consider him a legal MEM
Der Of the body, but for his own sake and
Of those who will be called upon TO pass
on the bills it might be well for him to
apply to the court under the 41st section
referred to and have legal title given
him. 1t would not cost him anything
and while Judge Lippincott said he was
not going to make his action a precedent
there is no doubt he would give Mr..
Couples the same privilege he has grant
ed the Others. As the case now stands,
we believe, as we have always held, that
Mr.. Couples is not a legal member of
the board, and We are more than con-
firmed in that idea by the fact that there
is proviso in the law touching this
very subject, and there is a method
whereby the entire matter may be set
tied beyond possibility of further con-