Viewing page 125 of 324

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

be convinced fairly, honestly and impartially that the Defdt did kill, and that he killed willfully, wickedly, and with malice, but suppose they are not convinced then it is their duty to find the Defdt not guilty - this is what is meant by a reasonable doubt, an awkard and vague expression calculated to cover but too often the corrupt verdict of a Jury packed on the State by the Defdt. and what is almost as bad calculated to ease the conscience of an honest but weak-[[strikethrough]] minded [[/strikethrough]] hearted Juror who is convinced of the guilt of the defdt. yet is willing to violate his oath, to quiet his sympathy. The abuse of this loose expression has produced a departure from the settled Law of [[strikethrough]] Hig for [[/strikethrough]] homocide. I have no doubt gentlemen from all the evidence, you ought to be honestly fairly, and impartially convinced of the guilt of the Defdts before you find them guilty as charged in the indictment. It is a principle of Law that it is better for 99 guilty men to escape than for one innocent man to be punished.
  
You gentlemen have been selected by the Defdt and the people of the State, for the word state means the people of the State to do justice between parties. You should let no partiality or prejudice enter into your deliberations and conclusions You ought to look to nothing but the evidence and the Law, and discard all prejudice, act impartially so as to preserve a conscience void of offence. Suppose the Bureau have acted disgracefully and Congress had violated the Constitution in its creation, this cannot be allowed to influence you in your decision. You must be governed alone by the Evidence and the Law. Act in such way as to secure the approbation of your own consciences and the approbation of a