Year: 1872

vent fearful crime"


1t was upon the weight of the same kind
of testimony that Mrs. Wharton was &C
| quilted of the murder of General Ketchum
Indeed, it seems now almost impossible
to convict in trials where it is necessary
for the prosecution to make out the case
by the tes imony of professional experts
provided the prisoner has the means to en-
ploy competent legal and scientific counsel


Why this should be so is question " ell
worthy Ut serious consideration. That
there is a growing disinclination on the
part of the average modern jury to bring
in a verdict of guilty in a case Of capital
| felony cannot be denied. There are some
| men in every community who are consci-
entiOusly opposed to capital punishment.
There are others whose weakness, and
others whose kindness of heart, make it
exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for
them, in the face of the plainest testimony,
to consign fellow-being to the gallows.-
But there may be, and in our opinion there
are, better and worthier reasons why mod
ern juries SO frequently acquit persons
charged with murder by poisoning.


1t has become a habit of late days,
especially with the press, perhaps we ought
to say with the Northern press, to ridicule
lection to the life and liberty of the citi-
zen, the trial by jury. We do not concur
in this feeling. Indeed, it seems to us that
the experience of our own generation, to
say nothing of the teachings of History
shows conclusively that no people can
preserve their liberties whose laws do not
recognise, and whose rulers do not respect
the writ of HGbeds Corpus and trial by
jury as inalienable rights of the citizen. 1t
is one of the fundamental principles of the
law, based upon the teachings of cxpe-
rience that it is better for mankind that
the rules for the administration Of justice
should be framed so as to permit the
acquittal of the guilty rather than by their
severity to procure the conviction of the
innocent. 1t has always, therefore, been
a cardinal principle of action with .juries
to give the prisoner the benefit OF the
doubt, AMI it is the application of this we'll
planation of the action of the juries in
modern times.


A man is charged with murder by
poisoning, and is put upon trial before a
jury for his life. Suspicious circumstances
indicating his guilt with seeming certainty
may, indeed, exist, and yet is possible
for the man to be perfectly innocent


There may be evidence Of the presence
Of poison that, unexplained, would seem to
be conclusive as to the guilt Of the prison.
er; scientific tests may have been
applied that We're deemed few years ago
to indicate unerringly the presence of a
given poison, and still the prisoner may be
innocent. There is nothing strange or
contradictory IN this. 1t happens that all
increased knowledge of chemistry Las
shown some of the tests hitherto relied
upon as absolutely Trustworthy TO be abso-
lutely inconclusive, for the reason that the
results thus obtained can be obtained by
the presence of other substances than the





happens, the analysis may have been made
in such a slovenly or Unscientific manner,
that the result is utterly valueless. Indeed it
happens that the presence of poison, as in
dicated in some analyses, is occasioned by
it's introduction in combination with the
very substances or the machinery used in
applying the sO-called tests.


These things being so, it ought not to
seem strange that sworn jurors should find
that they had reasonable doubts as to the
guilt of the prisoner, or that they should
give him the benefit thereof. In such
cases as these, it becomes absolutely ne
cessary for proper defence, for the prison
er to have the benefit of the counsel and
assistance of scientific man in the cross
examination Of the professional expert in
troduced i'll behalf of the State. This state
of things has brought about change in
the manner of conducting trials of this
character. in that, scientific counsel are as
regularly employed as legal counsel, when
parties can afford the expense. 1t is sim
ply impossible for lawyers to be sufficiently
versed in the knowledge of medic ne and
of chemistry to conduct satisfactorily and
intelligently difficult or complicated case
of alleged poisoning, and just here is
the trouble. This scientific knowledge can
not be had for the mere asking; it must be
paid for. 1t is not every community that
has chemist familiar with all the learn
ing of his profession, nor would it be just
to a man whose professional knowledge is
perhaps his only means of livelihood, tO
| force him not only to give to the State, Ol
indeed to the prisoner, the benefit of that
knowledge, without compensation, but also
to lose his time in attending court day after
day dUring.a protracted trial. And yet fol
| lack of competent witness of proper quail
ifcations as scientific expert, an limo
cent man may be convicted.


The act of the late Legislature TO some
extent meets the difficulty in the case by
leaving it to the discretion Of the Superior
Court to tax in the bill of costs suitable
compensation for all witnesses examined
as professional experts. The pow er OF th'
Superior Coult under this act having beer
affirmed by the Supreme Court in the lat
case of the State VS.. Dollar, witnesses vii
doubtless not be slow in taking advantag
| oT