Year: 1872

DISdGREEMENI lN HE oIOhEo CAoH'


The virtual conclusion of the trial of Stokes


in a disagreement of the Jury will surprise
no one who has closely watched the develop
ments of the case. 1t was so full of compli-
cations disconnected with the main issue OF
fact, there was so much on both sides to
conceal-and, sing1Ilarly enough, it was the
prosecution which had most to suppress by its
frequent obiections-that confusion Of the
Jury was the most natural consequence OF
the three weeks investigation and argument.
The total failure of the prosecution to estab-
lish more than momentary premedtatoD; the
absence of all proof that Stokes had dogged
Fisk to the hotel or that he knew that he was
going there the clear manner in which the
defense, on the other hand, showed that in the
matter of time Fisk actually followed Stokes;
tho several contradictions of the hall boys who
claimed TO have seen the shooting; the adnls-
sion of one of them that he was paid to tes-
tify so clearly shown by the hotel porter; the
positive liquidation by both Drs. Sayre and
Carnochan of the treatment of Fisk by Drs.
Tripler and Fisher; and the extraordinary ad-
missions of the latter to DR.. Shine, as sup
ported by the evidence of the prescriptions
themselves, were certainly enough to raise
doubts in tle minds of the most judicial OF
juries as to the immediate cause of FlsKs
death and tie credibility of some of the wit
nesses.


Now that the case is ended it is proper to
comment upOi some of its peculiarities; and
one of these, suggested by comparison with the
developments of another great criminal trial,
deserves speci,l mention. In the Stokes case
more than ore woman of the vilest repute
was involved, fortunately all of them indl-
rectly. The qiarrel of the murderer and the
murdered began about prostitute, and the
wounded man dying was literally surrounded
by doubtful characters, men as well as women.
Two OF these women were produced in court
and were on the stand; the others happily
had left the State. OF those who did not ap-
pear mention vas hardly made. The two who
did take the stand went away scatheless for
all that counsel did to stain their regulations.
The necessity of protecting some bad charac-
tiers complicated and greatly weakened the
case OF the prosecution. We heartily thank
District Attorney Garvin that he assumed that
grave responsibility and saved us from great
public scandal The counsel for the defense,
as they said, might have taken the roof of

"the Grand Central Hotel" and revealed
scenes of Righteousness and infamy which
would have shocked this whole community
and thereby perhaps strengthened their case.
We thank them that they had the moral
courage to present their argument without re-
sort to such an infamous and doubtful prac-
tice. All will honor them when they recall
that but two years ago, in great criminal
trial in which several gentlewomen of culture
and refinement were unhappily involved
counsel made it their chief defense by vain
endeavor to reflect discredit upon pure reputa-
tons far exalted above the slightest suspicion;
and henceforth all true men will ever put in
honorable contrast the impetuous Mckeon and
the dignifed Tremain, who defended Stokes
without scandal, with those two most eminent
Blackguards of our Bar, John Graham and
Charles Spencer, who thought it proper to
serve Mcfarland by public libels of the most
shameless character, whom they privately ad-
mitted to be stainless and above the breath Of
sugDiciOn.