The Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1864-11-26 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

THE GERMAN SOCIETY AND MR. BRIGGS, JUNE.  The German Legal Proteation S-clety will not allow its ill advised proceedings in the cane of Muller to us forgotten. With extraordinary obtmeneee of feelings las the Thers remarks', that body again thrusts Itself before the public, in a reply to a letter from the BOP of Mr. Briggs, complaining that a delegation of the Society should have waited on him to invite him to join three persons of whom he knew nothing in a last effort to obtain a respite for the murderer. The application was to be made in a personal Mien-lea with the Home Secretary The presence of one of the family of the victim was requested by the Society on no better ground than a piece of evidence winch might have been produced on the trial, and was not offered. Even of Its existence Mr. Briggs, Jun., had only the asaurance of three persona unknown, and on this mere assertion they expected the soil of the murdered man to accompany them forthwith to Sir George Grey, and express his belief of Mnller's total innocence ! This proceeding Mr. Briggs, in his letter to the Times designates as an indelicate and ill-timed appeal, "which his family should have been spared." Much stronger language might be applied to this step of the society with perfect justice. It would have been wt.s in that body to have received the mildly-worded rebuke in silence But, with an inexplicable persistence in blundering both aa to facts and the natural conclusions from them, the Society has put forth a reply to the letter of Mr. Briggs which fully bears mit that gentleman In all he said or did in reference to the extraordinary request made to him. Here is the letter in question. which we give at length— The German Legal Protection Society, satisfied wit): having performed what they regard as a sacred duty, and sustained by many kind opinions from their English friends, have resolved not to make any answer to the hostile criticisms of their recent proceedings which have appeared in the press. They consider that their position precludes them from entering into an argument with the public journals upon matters of opinion. It is quite otherwise, however, with state' Enema of facts. In a recent letter to your journal Mr. Briggs, jun., has made statements which, if uncontradieted, might alive the public to suppose that in defending Muller we had knowingly set up a false alibi, repudiated by the defendant himself, and had afterwards endeavoured to induce Mr. Briggs to join us in obtaining a respite, on grounds which we all the time believed to be false. We feel that our honour demands from us a contradiction of these statements. First, let us give an account of the interview with Mr. Briggs, and its object. Up to the last inonont we felt the utmost confidence in the innocence of Muller. We were in possession of the numerous affidavits which were appended to our memorial, and we had also just ascertained a fact which we considered most material—namely, that the crown of the hat found in the railway carriage would not fit the mark at the bottom of the hatbox found in Muller's room. Now, this hatbox, according to the case for the prosecution, was the one in which the hat found in the railway carriage was sent home by Walker, after having been bought by Matthews. Feeling the great importance of these and other facts, and that they teiried to throw the greatest doubt on the case against Muller, we could not fail