menu_book Chapter 16

Section 16 of American State Trials Volume 3. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. American State Trials Volume 3 by John D. Lawson. Trial of Matthews F. Ward for the Murder of William H. G. Butler.

Kentucky 1854 Part 8. The next witness is Barlow. On a joyful note Carpenter struck when he came to this man's testimony, and I thought I heard a little chuckle run through the crowd, showing the only trace of prejudice that I have seen in the place.

He would insinuate perjury. He asked exultingly, Didn't you say this was an aggravated murder? Didn't you say it was no use trying a rich man's son in Kentucky, if Ward was not punished?

The object is to prove that he lied in pretending to give Butler's dying words. He testified that he, in Hardee's house, asked Butler how it happened. Then Butler said, Ward came there, called me a liar. I struck him and he shot me. This is a lie, says Carpenter.

But how was he confirmed? Dr. Caldwell says Butler said they were engaged. Another witness says they were clenched. The boys say Butler sprang forward. They all confirmed Barlow.

But they say he is a liar, because he went and offered his testimony to Ward. Hear his explanation. In the police court it was proved that Ward struck Butler first. This was published all over the country,

and was prejudicing the whole community against Ward. Barlow knew this was not true, and felt it his duty to go and tell the father of the prisoner this circumstance. But the question is, had Butler told him this, two hours after the occurrence he relates the same story to Mrs. Crenshaw.

You remember her with a voice clear as a bell, and soft as a lute. He told Mays the same story in the Carpenter's shop half an hour after he heard it. But he went to the jail and played cards with the prisoner. And what if, on some cold winter evenings, when the prisoner was in his lonely cell, listening to the shout of the mob seeking for his blood, like Cuban bloodhounds,

this witness did help him while away a weary hour in some pleasant amusement. But Matt Ward associated with such a man. Now I had thought that a carpenter might be a gentleman, but here they begged the question, and brought the ingenuity, the infernal ingenuity of the process.

R.J. Ward is a rich gentleman, and his son Matt is a troubled, literary, refined man. And that low, mean, hellish hatred, which some feel towards this class, is played upon to influence the jury. And they are told that the very fact that a mechanic is admitted to their company,

is proof that he is suborned. This lawyer, Carpenter, came, I believe, from New Hampshire, but Barlow was born in Kentucky, where there are but two classes of people, gentlemen and slaves, and every man not a slave is a gentleman. Carpenter has brought with him notions not congenial to our soil.

Poor and proud is the motto in Kentucky, and the poorer the prouder. If a man is rich, you can take some liberty with him, but if he is poor, keep clear of him, insult him with no bribe. I thought the gentleman lay in the heart itself, and that wealth was but the guinea stamp. It is by no means strange that Barlow changed his opinion of Matt Ward,

informing his acquaintance. Since I have been here, I have learned that the noble, free, substantial farmers of Hardin have visited him in great numbers in his prison. And when, instead of finding the burly ruffy in their magic, they saw this pale, emaciated, neuralgic, rheumatic invalid,

and in conversation have found him intelligent and refined, they have gone away in tears. There must be some powerful alchemy in his presence that thus turns all to friends. If becoming his friend is proof of subordination, it is not confined to Barlow, but half of the citizens of Hardin County have participated in the crime.

But Barlow was confirmed by Allen and Gudgel. Allen heard the shock, and they immediately went and asked the boys how it happened. The boys tell them just what Barlow says Butler told him. His story is also confirmed by his own acts. Barlow stands unimpeached, surrounded with every badge of truth.

There is nothing strange in the cards, nothing strange in becoming a friend of Ward, after forming his acquaintance. I think we have now got at the correct facts in the case. William Ward, fifteen years of age and the first of last November, is severely flogged by Professor Butler and flogged too in the public school,

and called a liar. He goes home and tells his brother. His books are sent for and revoked. Matt Ward, in feeble, delicate health, goes to ask for an explanation, taking William with him, and Bob at his mother's request. Not anticipating the difficulty with Butler, but on account of stirrges.

He goes to the schoolhouse and politely and mildly asks an explanation. This is refused, horribly refused. All satisfaction is denied. Then he charges Butler with the same crime Butler charged his brother with. Then Butler clawed at him, bent him, and then, and not till then, Matt fired.

Next, as to the relative strength of these men, it has been shown that Butler's hand was contracted. This did not prevent his striking. Patrick Joyce says he was remarkable for his strength in his arms. That on shipboard he could climb a rope, hand over hand sailor-like.

That he could perform feats in the gymnasium requiring great strength in his arms. Yet they say he could not strike. But Campbell knew he would strike and could whip Matt. Matt F. Ward, feeble and attenuated, with muscles shrunk and stiffened, a man whom even his wife could whip, and has been testified.

Could such a man go there to assassinate Butler? As Kentuckians, interpreting criminal law as Kentuckians do, I ask you, is this cold-blooded premeditated deliberate murder? Having got a correct statement of the facts as derived from the evidence, let us apply the law to them and see if it is not clearly a case of self-defense.

I read the following quotations from Blackstone on personal security and the redress of private wrongs. The right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body and his reputation. Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value in the estimation of the law of England that it pardons even homicide, if committed, say, to fend-el, or in order to preserve them.

For whatever is done by a man to save either life or a member is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Besides, those limbs and members that may be necessary to a man in order to defend himself or annoy his enemy, the rest of his person is also entitled by the same natural rights to security from the corporeal insults of menaces, assaults, beating and wounding, though such insults amount not to the destruction of life or member. Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts and promises the personal liberty of individuals.

This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, a changing situation as inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint by due course of law. The defense of oneself, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such, is stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these, his relatives be forcibly attacked.

In his personal property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, and the breach of the peace which follows is chargeable only upon him who began the affray. The law in this case respects the passions of the human mind, and when external violence is offered to a man himself or to those whom he bears a near connection, makes it lawful for him to do himself that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature,

in which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. He considers that the future process is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force, since it is impossible to say to what greater length of repeal or cruelty, outages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defense, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature,

so it is not, neither can it be, in fact, taken away by the law of society. In the English law particularly, it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay, even for homicide itself. But care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and preservation, but then the defender would himself be the aggressor. Such, then, is the law of self-defense.

It is the first law of nature, and pervades all its departments, animate and inanimate. Everything seems to have its natural enemy, and is furnished with its peculiar means of defense. The bark of the tree, the rind of the fruit, and the cuticle of the vegetable are all means of defense. And so, in the animate world, every animal has its weapons for protection, even to the serpent, that cursed, blasted creature, sentenced to crawl on its belly, and lick the dust.

Even to that creature, God left his venom and fang when he pronounced his curse. This right of self-defense carries with it all the means necessary for its exercise. It must be used cautiously, but it gives me the right to beat, maim, or kill my opponent, not only to save my own life, but to save limb or any serious injury, whether it be actual or apparent. That life is not worth possessing that I have not the right to defend.

If I had not this right, I would raise my own arm, take my own life, and hurl it back into the face of high heaven. It is spiced and worthless gift. As to the amount of force I have a right to use, necessity is the only measure. If Matt Ward should undertake to whip me, and I should kill him, I should be guilty of murder, for I could hold him with one hand. But there are other men that I'd undertake to beat me. Suppose a stock man should attack me. I strike him, and he would look me five times worse. If I had a bludgeon, I might use it.

But I have none. Must I stand and be beaten? Will any Kentucky man tell me to stand that? No. If I had no other weapon, I would outwit my knife and cut his throat from ear to ear. The right of self-defense is no good tory, unless it carries with it all the means necessary for its exercise. We draw musty law books. This is the criminal law in Kentucky. So acknowledged and so administered. I have defended many criminals in my life, and this is the law wherever I have practiced.

Now take this law and apply it to this case. The law, as I have declared, is the law of the land. Apply this law to the facts as I have deduced them from the evidence, and see if this can be called a crime of murder. And if it is not murder, it is not anything. The difference between murder and manslaughter is very slight, as shown by the books. When a man is driven as far as he can be, and then slays his adversary, it is self-defense.

In this instance, one of these men was powerful, very powerful, weighing 135 pounds. I have seen such. Wicked men of twice their weight. The other is a feeble invalid, in no condition to fight, goes expecting to ask a civil question and receive a civil answer, is refused an explanation, resensored in words, is seized, bent, pushed back, and at last, fainting and falling. He wids himself of his adversary, fires his pistol, and most unfortunately, the shot is fatal.

And he's shown himself by this act unfit to live, to hold a place among his fellow beings, or coming down to the next grade of crime with you for this act, send him to the penitentiary. Will you tear him from his girl-wife? Will you shave those classic locks? Will you sentence him to a confinement to which there is, to a man of five or noble impulses, no equal in the category of human punishment, and only paralleled in the other world by the prison home of devils and damned spirits?

No, as his friend, knowing his feelings, I ask you, rather than do this, tear away his life. In his name, I ask, give me liberty or give me death. If you call that mercy, give the mercy that conventors spoke of, the mercy of the grave. Death in any form is preferable. But Mr. Carpenter told you you had nothing to do with mercy, and that if you had you could not mitigate the stings of conscience.

We can bear all the stings of conscience this deed inflicts, but we do feel deep, lasting, pungent regret. We will do anything to recall the deed. We feel every sympathy for the family of the deceased. We fling ourselves on our country and our God for trial. Not guilty, we say now. Not guilty. We say living. Not guilty. We say dying. The deep and damning effects of one kind of verdict we look upon with horror.

Evidence has been introduced to prove the good character of the prisoner. Senators, members of Congress and of the cabinet, mechanics of every class, officers and preachers have all testified to the meekness and kindness of his disposition. He traveled abroad, poor fellow, for his health. And here is a book, letters from three continents, that shows how he spent his time and what were his reflections on the various spots he visited.

It is not in evidence and I cannot read from it, but I thank him for this contribution to our lives. I cannot read from it, but I thank him for this contribution to our literature. In imagination I followed him in his travels, and with him passed down the Rhine, crossed the Alps, gone down the Danube, passed the Golden Horn, stood with him at Stambool, gone up the Nile, crossed the desert,

and stood with him on Sinai, where God gave the law to Moses. Could I read you his reflections there? You would see that he was of too high and pure feeling to harbor malice to a fellow being. It is a pity that he should die so young. His country has looked on him, hopefully. But that he should die after the fashion sought by the prosecution is awful.

I ask you not to pardon. I ask you not to relax the rigor of the law. But I do ask you to administer justice tempered with mercy. Look at the evidence and answer me if that young man should die and die a felon. It cannot be. I believe in omens. Knowing the efforts made to prejudice the public mind and finding a jury could so readily be paneled,

I felt there must be an acquittal. Such a verdict will be looked for and such a verdict will be vindicated by the whole country when the testimony is published. But I have talked till I have weirded you and exhausted myself. There are those to follow me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose, and they will supply all my deficiencies. April 24th. Mr. Harris, for the prosecution, addressed the jury between two and three hours.

Mr. Helm, for the defense. Gentlemen of the jury, I have often addressed you in the jury box and from the rostrum, on the stump and in the muster field. You are all aware that in the discussion of any subject in which I feel a deep interest, my manner is usually excited and earnest. But on this occasion I speak under great disadvantage, having been confined to my bed by illness almost constantly for the last two months, and only hoping that I may be sustained and that you may bear with me until I can discharge the solemn duty I owe to my client.

I feel, perhaps, more deeply interested in this case than I ever have felt in any other in which I have been engaged. I feel thus from the nature of the ties that bind me to the family of this defendant. Many years ago, when I first entered the political field, I met his father in the councils of the state, and again and again have I associated with other members of the family there. And as in the beginning of my humble political career, these men took me by the hand and gave me their aid and support.

I have ever felt grateful to them. And now, that an event has unfortunately occurred, by which I hope to be enabled to do something, so far as my poor ability goes, to cancel the debt, you cannot wonder that my deepest sympathies are enlisted. The gentleman who preceded me has alluded to outside influences, to the fact that this prisoner was driven from his own home to seek justice here. It is true that from the moment the event occurred, for which he is on trial, distorted and prejudiced accounts of it were given to the public,

and accompanied by articles of the most inflammatory character, were spread upon the wings of the wind by the newspaper press. Therefore, this excited feeling was caused, and therefore the prisoner asked only what the law gives, that he might be tried in an unbiased and unprejudiced community. There were other counties in that circuit much nearer Louisville than this, and no one expected this would be selected. But the judge, perhaps willing to rid himself of the perplexity of such an exciting trial, on his own motion, removed the venue here, to the great surprise of the like of the prisoner and all his counsel.

But now that his cause is brought before you, he only asks at your hands a fair and impartial trial. Another circumstance alluded to was the possession of Mr. Ward. He has been held up to you as the possessor of great wealth, and repeatedly called a millionaire, to invoke an improper and unmanly feeling against him. Now, though there is nothing whatever in evidence on this point, I feel it my duty to correct the impression that has been left on your minds. Mr. Ward is the possessor of no such princely fortune as you have been led to believe, and the property of the family consists of one house and lot in Louisville,

a partnership in a commission store in New Orleans, and, by the mother of the accused, that plantation in Arkansas owned by him, with perhaps a few slaves. The counsel for defense have been alluded to. I did not think after reporting a man from the vicinity of Cincinnati, in addition to the other counsel retained, to assist the officer of the state and to make a neat hour speech to this jury, who should hear any remarks on that point from the prosecution. The truth is, the accused expected, and it was currently reported, that some of the most distinguished lawyers in the land had been engaged to conduct the prosecution.

It was said at different times that Rufus Trout of Massachusetts, Thomas Corwin of Ohio, John Bell of Tennessee, and other counsel of equal ability and power had been retained. It was, therefore, determined, and whether properly or not, you can judge that men of talented reputation should be employed in the defense, and that Greek should be met by Greek.