Year: 1870




to-day, a. an anxious public learned last even


ing, and a. was generally expecsed. FOR


twenty-four days this extraordinary trial


dragged along wearily to the court and jury,


and at one time exhausted the energies OF the


Judge, though the public was never tired. and


though the interest and excitement increased
from day to day. Mcfarland was an obscure


man. comparatively, Till this case made him
notorious. II was not the man that the people


were so much interested in, but the principles


the morality and social questions involved in
| the case. The whole community was tho jury


and the twelve men who delivered the verdict


were but the exponents Of public sentiment
| In truth, the dangerous doctrines or theories
of certain class of people, which tend
to undermine the social fabric and the
sacred ties Of marriage, were on trial more
than the man who took Richardson's life. This
fact may not be satisfactory to many lawyers,
who look at such q case in strictly legal
point Of view, who have no feeling or senti-
ment, and who sacrifice everything to the
letter of the law; but in this case, as in all
similar cases, tho voice of the people is the
voice of God and of abstract Justice


1t is unnecessary to 90 minutely into the
details Of the case. They are well and gene
rally known. No trial of late years has ex-
cited more attention, and there are few people
who have not read the evidence and pleading
sufficiently to understand the merits and
nature of the case. 1t may be proper, how
ever, to recall briefly few of the leading
facts. Mcfarland, as is known, killed, by
shooting, Albert D. Richardson at the Tribune
Office on the 25th of last November. The
motive for this act was that Richardson had
by seductive means separated McFarlands
wife from him, and had been the cause Of
Mrs. Richardson obtaining afterwards pre-
tended divorce in Indiana from her husband,
with a view of marrying her himself.
The evidence developed on the trial
shows that from the first of the illicit
love of Richardson for Mrs. Mcfarland,
and all through, there was design to sepa-
rate this woman from her husband. Indeed, it
is not going too far to say that this design de-
veloped into tacit plot if not well matured
one, between Richardson and certain female
and male friends, who, for the most part, were
connected with him in the Tribune Office.
Mcfarland loved his wife fondly, and his love,
pride and jealousy naturally infamed his mind
against the man who had broken up his mar
ried relations and destroyed his home, family
and peace of mind. 1t was a great moral
crime, no doubt, on the part of Richardson
nj 1Iu fho ri Of
who aided him in it, but it was one for which
Mcfarland had no redress, and he took the
law in his own hands.


The theory of the defence in the trial was
that Mcfarland was insane, and. at the time
of killing Richardson, not accountable for his
forward to show that there had been insanity
in the Mcfarland family, but this did not
amount to much. The main point which the
defence rested the case on was that McFar-
land, being very sensitive man and fond hus-
band, was exasperated to insanity or frenzy
from him. The able counsel for Mcfarland
made the most of this plea, and no doubt OBJ
tanned verdict of acquittal upon it. A plea
of justifable homicide could not have been
successful in this case, for whatever the moral
features of it are the law does not permit the
taking Of life except in self-defence. 1t must
be said, however, that there is some danger
to the supremacy of the law and to the safety
of society if the plea Of insanity will procure
acquittal where there may be evidence Of
premeditation or preparation to take life, if
only the last moment of frenzy when the act is
committed is to be considered. This is
point that courts, lawyers, juries and the pub
lie should not lose sight of. In the trial of
Sickles for killing Key, in that of Cole for
killing Hiscock and in this of Mcfarland popu-
lar sentiment or feeling proved stronger than
the techncalities of law. In fact, it is very
difficult and almost impossible to convict
man Of murder in this country under the cir
cumstances of cases like these.


There is in the United States, happily,
great regard for the marriage tie Even where
it is not SO well guarded by the laws, as in
Indiana and other States, it is defended by
public opinion. The moral and religious SEN.
timent Of the community generally guards the
sacred marriage relation, even where the laws
are loose upon the subject, and in spite of the
demoralizing theories Of our modern freelovers.
In the case Of Mcfarland, this, as was said
before, was exhibited in remarkable manner.
But besides the general sympathy, which was
felt probably by the jury for the injured hus-
band, there was peculiar feeling Of revulsion
against the free lovers and their dangerous
sentiments. Every right-minded person saw
that the whole Of this terrible tragedy resulted
from the loose and demoralizing views of that
class Of weak sentimentalists and pretended
philosophers, male and female, of which the
Tribune establishment is the centre. Rich
ardson was a shining light of that class and
that establishment. The evidence on the trial
shows that it was the set of people belonging