Newspaper Page Text
168
the countryman.
/
( " '■ .
Do words of accusation, on the part of the i
sheriff; and, possibly, under the law!
which I shall presently read you,ii might
have pointed back, as the cause of its ut
terance, to a consciousness of guilt, on
the part of the accused. But not so with
the words, 4 I never done it.’ This ex
pression cannot, like the other, stand
alone, and independent of any other re
mark. It is a dependent sentence—de
pendent upon something that preceded it,
to explain its meaning. It does not stand
like the other, full and complete in itself.
It seems lost, taken out of its connection.
It pines for its associate remark, to which
it is wedded, as being explanatory. It is
like the dove that has lost its mate—or,
rather, that is confined from its partner.
Unbar its prison door, and it will fly, in a
bee line, to that other remark, made by
the sheriff, and to which it was an answer.
It can’t possibly go to any other, for there
is no other that will co-habit, or associate
with it. Turn” the words, ‘I never done
it,’ loose from the meshes woven around
it, and it will fly right back to the accusa
tion made by Mr. Fitts against the accus
ed, that he burned Dr. Adams’s house.
And then that accusation explains ray
client’s remark, and justifies it.
Gentlemen, there is no resisting the con
clusion at which I arrive. The remark, ‘I
didn’t burn Dr. Adams’s house,’ could
stand by itself. The remark, ‘I never
done it,’ could not stand by itself. Sup
pose, now, one of you had shot a dog of
mine, and you desired to deny it to me,
without my making any accusation against
you. Would you come up to me, and say
‘I never done it?’ Why, I’d think you
were deraDged—I couldn’t understand
you—I’d have no idea what you meant.
If you said, ‘ I didn’t shoot your dog,’
then I’d understand you—would know
what you meant. Suppose, now, another
one of you jurors were to pass along by
the first juror, and me, and you heard him
say to me, ‘I never done it’—wouldn’t you
know I had made some accusation, to
which this negation was made in reply?
Certainly you would. Just so, now, gen
tlemen, when you are told that Joseph
Ashfield said, ‘I never done it,’ you know
this remark was made in reply to some
accusation by Fitts, or Walker.
Suppose you are going along the road,
and pick up a knife: this instrument is
full and complete in itself. You don’t
look for anything else. But suppose you
find one blade of a pair of scissors. Your
mind then wanders right away in pursuit
of the other blade. You know that one
blade is not full, and complete in itself.
It needs something else to fit it, or, as it
were, to explain it. The prosecution, in
reporting the remark of Joseph Ashfield,
have not presented you with a knife.
They have giveh you one blade of a pair
of scissors. You want the other blade.
You find it in Fitts’s accusation. Take it:
here it is; Fitts says to the accused, ‘You
burned Dr. Adams’s house.’ Now put to
this, the other blade, which the prosecu
tion gave you, when they tell you Joseph
Ashfield s.iid, ‘I never done it.’ ‘You
burned Dr. Adams’s house’—‘1 never done
jt,’ Here arc both blades, with the rivet
in, and with it you will cut in twain the !
mesh they seek to weave round the ac
cused.
Gentlemen, there is no resisting the
conclusion to which I come in this matter.
An army of witnesses could not success
fully combat it. Ten thousand witnesses
could not make you believe, when you
found one blade of a pair of scissors, that
the other blade did not justly and proper
ly belong with it. And so in this case:
no testimony can make you believe other
wise than that Ashfield’s remark does
justly and properly belong with one made
by Fitts—and an accusation of guilt on
the sheriff’s part, is the only remark that
will fit that of fhe accused, or that could
have been its cause. If the prosecution
could only bring forward such circum
stantial evidence as that I have been de
tailing here, there would be no difficulty
in their obtaining a verdict. But alas !
for their cause, but joy for that of an in
nocent man, they have done no such
thing.
In saying what I do at this point, I have
no design to impeach the veracity of the
sheriffs. They were not in a very good
condition to remember exactly what was
said, or all that was said, at the arrest.
You will recollect, gentlemen, thero was a
good deal of ‘agitation,’ with some of the
parties present, when this arrest was
made.
But, gentlemen, even if you give the
remark made by the accused the full force
claimed for it by the prosecution—even if
they had proven here, in full and une
quivocal terms, without leaving a shadow
of doubt about it, that the accused said,
without any accusation made against him,
‘I didn’t burn Dr. Adams’s house/ this
would not have been conclusive against
him. This would come under the head of
‘fabrication of evidence,’ and I read you
from 1 Gieenleaf on Evidence, section 38 ;
‘The fabrication of evidence, howe.ver, does
not of itself furnish any presumption of
law, against the innocence of the party;
but is a matter to be dealt with by the
jury. Innocent persons/under the influ
ence of terror from the danger of their
situation, have been sometimes led to the
simulation of exculpatory facts; of which
several instances are stated in the books.’
Now, gentlemen, if you believe one half
that has been told you about how ‘scared’
the accused was, you will believe he made
the remark he did, ‘under the influence of
terror.’ Even should you believe there is
anything in ihe remark, ‘I never done it,’
recollect it falls under the head of ‘fabri
cation of evidence,’ and should be dealt
with according to the law I have read you.
It is also of the nature of a ‘verba! admis
sion,’ and the law I read you, and the re
marks I made on this subject, must be
borne in mind, when you come to weigh
the remark made by the accused, at the
arrest.
And now, gentlemen, with regard to this
arrest, I have no idea that what occurred
at it produced any impression upon the
minds of the sheriffs that the accused was
guilty, other than the suspicion they may
already have had against him. But law
yers, you know, talk with their witnesses
before they put them on the stand, to
know what they will testify. I can im»
agine my brother Foster, and brother Ad
ams, talking to the sheriff before they
conclude to make of him a witness: They
would say, ‘Mr. Fitts, did the accused try
to get away when you arrested him ?’
Mr. Fitts would be inclined to think not.
‘But think, Mr. Fitts, for a moment: what
was the position of the accused when you
arrested him?’ ‘Well, he was in a run
ning position.’ ‘Ah ! that’s a trump card
for us, brother Adams.’ And then they
would proceed with their examination
again : ‘Well, Mr. Fitts, what was the ac
cused doing when you first saw him ?' 'He
was standing looking out of the window/
‘Yes,’ interposes Walker, ‘he was peeping
out of the window at us.’ This is another
trump for brothers Adams and Foster, and
they begin to shuffle for another. ‘Well,
did the accused seem much frightened,
when he was arrested?’ ‘Well/ says
Walker, ‘I asked him why he was scared/
‘Another good trump for us, brother Fos
ter. Walker would not have asked the
accused why he was scared, if he had not
been very much frightened.’ After a
slight pause, my brothers begin again :
‘Did the accused say anything about the
burning?’ ‘He said ‘I never done it/*
‘First rate evidence, brother Adams, first
rate evidence.’ After applying the suc
tion pump again and again, the foregoing
answers are all my brothers can get out of
the sheriffs, and these are dismissed.
After they are gone, one of my brothers
would say to the other, ‘Their testimony
don’t amount to anything, but we’d better
put them up. Their evidence will serve
to confuse the jury, if it doesn’t do any
thing else.’ And so Messrs. Fitts and
Walker are brought here, and their testi
mony just establishes nothing at all.
(to be concluded.)
The Georgia Boys.—We have noticed
mention made of North Carolina, and Al
abama boys, of Virginia, and South Caro
lina cadets, but little notice has been ta
ken of that gallant band of youths—the
Georgia cadets. They have been in ser
vice many months—in the trenches in
front of Atlanta, bravely opposing Sher
man in his route through Georgia, when
ever an opportunity was offered: have he
roically endured the heat of summer, and
the cold of winter : have cheerfully, and
withouta murmur endured severe marches,
and the hardships of a wearisome cam
paign, and still are boldly confronting the
foe. Nobly have they illustrated Georgia,
and proud is our state of her noble boys.
A friend, who has a brother in the com
mand, tells us that they are now seventy
(originally 130) strong, and have lost, in
various battles and skirmishes, and the
casualties of camp life, seventeen of their
number. It is a noble body of Georgia’s
sons, and proudly have they aided in sus
taining the honor and renown of their na
tive state.— Columbus Sun.
“Education begins the gentleman;
but reading, good company, and re*
flection mu6t finish him.”