|
135
killed him in this way, but you are left in doubt, then you are bound
to acquit him.
This is no hardship upon the Government. The Government may
allege as many counts as they choose. They may bring forward
charges of death committed by burning, strangling, poisoning, or in
any other way. They never need suffer from the privilege which
they have to give in stating the means. But then the law holds
them to prove some one of the means alleged ; and if they fail in that,
they fail in their case.
To recapitulate that point. To convict on these first two counts,
you must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the death was
produced by the means of striking: under the third count, that it was
produced by means of striking with the hands and fists, and beating
against the floor. And we shall submit to you that, with regard to
that point, there is not a tittle of proof. I do not suppose that the
Government will contend that the death was produced in that way.
And I apprehend that we might pass from that, and carry you more
particularly to the first two counts, of death by striking, because on
those the Government have produced some apparent proof.
I say that. these counts are to be proved here, and proved beyond
reasonable doubt. And this brings me to the third statement which
I intended to make-what it is that the Government must do, to
entitle themselves to a conviction, supposing the defendant introduces
no proof whatever. What are the Government to do, under any
circumstances, to produce a conviction ? They are to prove that
Professor Webster destroyed Dr. Parkman, according to the allega-
tions read over to you, and that he destroyed him by means of striking
with a deadly weapon; and if they fail, beyond reasonable doubt,
there is an end to the Government's case. I say, beyond reasonable
doubt ; and, as I am upon that point, I should like to dwell upon it
for a moment.
I am perfectly aware, Gentlemen, that there is an idea abroad, that
this matter of reasonable doubt is something that the law accords to
the prisoner as a gratuity; something that he is not entitled to; some-
thing by which guilty men sometimes escape punishment. But there
never was a greater mistake in the world. This matter, that the
Government are to prove a man guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, is
no privilege to the individual, for which he does not have to give full
compensation. It is not accorded to him. as a gratuity. And the
examination of our criminal system shows that I am right here.
Under different systems of laws, different criminal codes are adopted.
I make no doubt but that ours is as perfect as any. Look at it, and
see how imperfect it would be, if it were not for the checks put upon
it. Every man must be proved to be guilty.
What is our system ? We take a man from his family. We arrest
him upon the charge of a heavy, heinous offence. We lock him up
in a jail. And while his mind is paralyzed by his position, he is told
to .procure a defence-to proceed and prepare for his defence. What
next ? Why, ex parte proceedings go on. The matter is tried and
adjudicated before a Coroner's Jury, where he is not present. It is
afterwards tried before a Grand Jury, where he is not represented.
An indictment is found; and then, with all this accumulation of pub-
lic opinion necessarily formed upon these proceedings, he is brought
into Court, and put upon his trial.
|
