Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 January 1884 — SENATOR VOORHEES. [ARTICLE]

SENATOR VOORHEES.

Defense of Young Nutt, the Slayer of his Father’s Murderer. Senator Voorhees’ effort at Pittsburg, last Monday, in defence of young Nutt, is described as a very eloquent ene. The following special gives a brief ontline of the eloquent Senator’s remarks: When the doors of the Court room were reopen’d at 1 o’clo’k an immense crowd struggled for admittance. At least 2,000 \wni turned away. Senator Voorhees and Colonel Bou dinot, with a number of ladies, could not get in for some time. The Senator took the matter g od-naturedly, but said: “Well, if I can’t get in there will be no speech for the people to hear.” In the crowd women fainted, clothes were torn, and there were frequent fights. Three men were seriously hurt. A s Voorhees entered all eyes turned upon him. His shock of hair was brushed heavily hack and Iris iron-gray beard smoothed down. His large, heavy features were set, and it was evident that he appreciated the importance of %e effort that devolved uporr Tliere was a general murmur among the audience as lie appeared, and all settled themselves for what should he the chef d’ouvre of the oratory of the trial. - When Voorhees began to speak every eye was turned upon him, and a phenomenal hush fell on the crowdHe began by saying that j uries for 200 years had not convicted a man accused of killing a man who invaded his home and destroyed the honor of liisVife. Ue cited a number of cases in which emotional insanity was the defense, and which resulted in a verdict of acquittal, and continued as follows: “Why did Dukes write those letters to Captain Nutt? God knows, but I do not. He was not forced into it. Hl was not goaded to it. And yet he wiote those awful letters. And what wo’d have been the result? He was as strong as Dukes, and if he had kilied Dukes do you suppose lie would have been convicted? He was strong; his son is weak. He is mentally below par; his father was not. He was a stronger man than

his son. He was a business man of honor, butlie wo’d not have been convicted, jjje had thrown into his face that which was worse than vitriol. It seemed that hell had opened and spawned a monster of unusual type to do that thing. On the doctrine of emotional in sanity,Nutt could have been acquitted. I would have said, ‘take a shotgun, fill it four INCHES DEEP WITH BUCKSHOT, wail until you see him on the street, then shoot him down.’ I would have done it. God forgive me not if I would not. I am talking of a stiong man. a man born strong, and if no I such man lias been convicted of this crime what will von do j with I hi.'- v. ak boy." Was there ever .... m a blow i a fal ther as the letter of Dukes?— | It was marked, ‘Head in pri- | vate.’ It meant read in tor- ! ture! read in blood! read in | flarftes! I have read thehisto- | ry of our country and know i something of its stories of mar- ! tyrs. When 1 was going from j Uniontown to Connellsville an old citizen of Fayette said:— j “There is where Colonel Craw ! ford was burned in the old In-

ciian War.’ I remember the story. Cranford was burned at the, stake, and when Simon Gerty was ask, 1 by the poor victim to shoot him, Gerty replied coolly: 'I have no gain. 1 His torture was no more than that of Captain Nutt. And his son, what of him?

DUKKS D*ATH. ‘‘H was filled with an unnatural calm until the trial of Dukes came alnut. All of that time he held the awful canker in his breast. A slmd der of horror ran through the world when Dukes was acquitted. The man who wrote those letters to Captain Nutt was unlit to live. There is no use arguing about this.” Mr. Voorhees then analyzed the boy’s condition up to the killing, and said: “Whether weak or stroi ;g, Janies Nutt has lived up to the divine principle, which is the last at the grave and tin: first, in creation. If he has been weak, I shall commit him to you as Christ committed the weak to the strong.” The speaker expressed his astonishment at Mr. Johnson’s attack on Mr. Nutt for letting James carry a pistol, and said: “What ha rai has James done with a pistol? Why should he not have a pistol? He did right with it. Who can find fault with what he did with a pistol, except that lie put Dukes in his grave, where he ought to be, and some of his apologists here m Court,where they ought not to be. I thank God he had a pistol, and I think he used it well. Where has lie used a pistol unlawfully? Where has he ever abused the use of it? What was the harm 3of his having it? He never used it where he ought net to have done.”.