Rensselaer Republican, Volume 17, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 May 1885 — Another View of Wariner’s Case. [ARTICLE]

Another View of Wariner’s Case.

To the Public: . Up to this time I have said tiothing in public print, concerning the condemned man, Wartner. Published articles, and current talk against the commutation ot his sentence; evidence a misconception, if not too ’narrow a view of the cisc. It is perhaps generally known that the prisoner is utterly destitire of means, had not a "dollar to employ.counsel, and that his defense was assigned to me as county attorney. “The counsel for the defense,’’ there-, fore, in this case, has no zeal inspired by fee o- hope of reward. I had never i seen the prisoner until he was brought i into court to answer the indictments, and knew nothing of his antecedents. A poor, weak minded, ignorant, friendless wretch, among strangers and foreigners, of whoso customs he knew

almost nothing, he was compelled to tell what little he bad wits to say, through interpreters whom he believed t> be prejudicial against him, and in favor of his execution. Mob violence was openly threatened, and he was momentarily’ expecting to be seized by infuriated men and hurled into eternity. It matters not that there was no disorderly demonstra' ion. He bad heard of the threats, and believed they would be put in forces- -Under such eircunihe plead guilty. It is now manifest that I erred in favoring the plea, and the court erred in receiving it. A learned —and experienced p hysieiau. after several examinations and scientific tests, finds the prikdn’br Very deficient in the moral facqlties of mind and reasoning power, with symptoms of chronic inflammatiou of the upper parts of the brain. The officer who keeps him, and the ministers who have the best opportunities to know, testify to mental deficiency amounting to insanity or imbecility—not positive but negative insanity, an inherent weakness of mind tending to dementia or idiocy : a lack of mental power to enable him to weigh 1 consequences and distingui.-.h right from wrong. Can we afford to execute such a mmi? If there is a reasonable doubt of t! o accused’s guilt, he must have the ben. - fit. of the doubt. If there is a doubt of his sanity, he must have the benefln </’ this doubt ; nay, more, the state, society humanity must have t:e benefit of the doubt.

But it is said: ‘A brutal murdei; Iris, been comn.it'ed!” True; and shall we commit another? Our Constitution requires our “penal code be founded on the principles of reformation and not in vindictive justice."' Likewise tr ust bo iis u.liuini-.iratioi). These principles seem now to be lost sight of. Balievi'ig in these principles, sodung the foundation of our penal code, and believeing the execution of the prisoner would be a disgrace which we would all regret when too late, I signed the petition for commutation, and filed the papers w th our Governor. The judgment under which he is sentenced is probably a nullity. Our law requires capital cases to be tried by a jury. R. 8. 1881 § 1821. Tuere are but four capital cases under our statute : treason, murder in the first degree, and two fui'ais of murder by liuc ling. —-T no sections defining these crimes, and prescribing the penalties, confer the powe 1 ' to fix the punishment, only on a jurjr. §§1902,1904-1906. The language is identical in the four sections : “shall suffer death or be imprisoned in the state prison during life, in the discretion of the jury. ” It is peculiar to these sections, occurringrin no other part of the statute. These are words of jurisdiction, They confer the power. They limit it to a jury. An attempt to exercise it by any other, is an usurpation. The judgment of a court acting without jurisdiction, without the authority of lawpis void. It is as though nothing had bdew done. At the instance oi a venerable Ex-Judge, not of our county, and members of our own bar, as well as many prominent lawyers in different parts of the state, I fell it to be my duty to appeal the ease to tfce'Supreme court, where it will be reviewed next week.

What then is our status in this case? First, we haVe sentenced a man to death whom sucsequeut facts show to be irresponsible for his criminal acta. Second ’ the judgment of sentence is coram ' t non ; judice and void. Yet we find persons, ' many good persons, insisting on his execution. Suppose only the first proposition to be true, what is the logical conclusion? Simply that every one who upholds the judgment and encourages its execution, becomes morally guilty of the Victim’s blood. Rut what if the latter be true? Then the cxecutionier, and every one who aids or assists him, becomes legally guilty of homicide. This is not over stated. Since the days of Magna Charta, no man can be deprived of life or liberty except by due process of law. Exfe-pt under i valid judgmef/, the Sheriff has no more authority to execute a human being than any other person. A void judgment is mot a judgment at tfU. It

is no morel authority than the merest dictum of a country pedagogue. An execution under it will lay every person engaged ia,the execution, and all who instigate it or aid or abet at it, liable to indictment and prosecution for murder. We may well take counsel ot reason in this matter, and enquire more deeply into jthe facts arid the law. We may well avoid rash action, whereby we may become actually guilty -of the crime with which this demented man is charged, and fix a-lasting stigma upon ourselves and our'community. Certainly none of us desire an unlawful taking of the prisoner’s life. Much less do we desire to lay our Sheriff and his aids An 4 our Circuit Judge liable to indictment for murder. It the Governor shall commute the death sentence to life imprisonment at hapd labor, thfe law will be fully satisfied. It not, ans the Supremo court shall hold the judgment void, we can well afford to give the prisoner a fair trial, and a'ride the result of the verdict of a jury. Thus the law will be vindicated, aud our, hands wiill be free from the stain of human blood.

FRANK W. BABCOCK.