Petition from E. D. Clark and R. Booth to Mississippi Governor James L. Alcorn; October 15, 1870

Documents
Petition from E. D. Clark and R. Booth to Mississippi Governor James L. Alcorn; October 15, 1870

Document Network
Document Metadata

Each transcribed document contains links that connect it to other documents on the same topic in the collection.

People

Alcorn, J. L. (James Lusk), 1816-1894 Booth, R. V.Clark, E. D.Hobson, John L.Markham, Henry Markham, Mrs. Unknown Stubbs, Henry Taylor, Creed

Events

Appointment to office Crime Crime--Assault and battery Crime--Murder Crime--Threat Criminal Procedure--Clemency Criminal Procedure--Sentencing Trial

Organizations and Businesses

Courts Courts--Circuit Courts Jury Mississippi. State Penitentiary (Jackson, Miss.)

Occupations

Cooks Lawyers Physicians

Places

Vicksburg (Miss.)Warren County (Miss.)

Social Identifiers

African Americans Historically free and newly freed African Americans

Vital Statistics

Death Disease and illness

Page 1

[note] Oct. 15, 1870 [/note]

(E)

To His Excellency
James L Alcorn
Governor of Miss:

Sir:

We the undersigned counsel by appointment of the Court for Creed Taylor, who is charged with the murder of Henry Mark=ham on the 12^th day of August 1868, and for which he was tried, found guilty, and sen=tenced at the July Term of the Warren Circuit Court 1870, at the request of your Excellency beg leave to submit the follow=ing statement.

In submitting our view of the facts and law of the case, we do not wish to be un=derstood as finding fault in the slightest degree with the verdict of the jury. We have no doubt that they discharged their delicate and responsible duties on trial occasion, hon=estly and conscientiously. The jury was composed of Eight white and four colored men, and the trial was conducted in a fair

Page 2

and impartial manner by the counsel who represented the in-terests of the State:

The only testimony going to establish the connection of the Defendant Taylor, with the killing of young Markham, were his own declarations, made nearly two years after the death of the deceased in a quarrel between himself, a colored man, and a white boy, in which he said in substance, if not in the exact language as de=tailed by witness, "that he had butted Henry Markham to death and if they didn't look out he would do them the same way", and teal "By God where he got a butt at a fellow he soon sent him to Hell". This witness Henry Stubbs, when asked on Cross Examination by defendants counsel, when he did not men=tion this conversation soon after it occurred, answered that it made but little impression upon him, because he doubted,

Page 3

from the manner of Taylor, to use his own langauge, that he was only "blowing".

Dr John L Hobson who was called in as the physician of the deceased was examined on the trial of the case and tes=tified in substance as follows. That when he first reached the deceased ^he^~~the~~ thought from his appearance that he had died in a fit of appoplexy, but on further examination found that the symptoms would not justify such a conclusion. He then thought that perhaps the condition of the deceased might have been pro=duced by a fit of Epilepsy, but his examination satisfied him that that was not the case. He then stated that after a full and minute examination of young Markham, his own mind became satisfied that his death had been produced by External violence of some kind or other, On cross examination he stated that he would not pretend to say

Page 4

that his death had been pro-duced by violence at the hands of a human being, and mentioned several other cases in which the same condition and symp=toms might have been superin=duced.

Mrs. Markham the mother of the deceased, stated on the trial of the case, that she was up when her son went to the corn crib as usual to feed the horses; that her room in which she was, at the time, was not more that forty feet from the crib, and that the kitchen in which the cook was preparing break=fast was about the same dis=tance from the crib. She said that some time after her son had gone out, she heard some=thing like the groan of a person in pain, and went to the crib, where she found the deceased in a speechless condi-tion. The deceased was about fifteen years of age.

There was one other witness ex=

Page 5

(E) 5

arrived we think, but the above statement embodies the substance of the Evidence.

We did not think on the trial of the case, nor do we now think, that the "Corpeus Delicti" was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. Hebron, by whose testimony the counsel for the State sought to established this point, only proved in our opinion that the death might have been produced by human agency, not that it was the result of such agency, and if our view of the law be correct, it to prove the "Corpus Delicti", it is necessa=ry to show, not only that the death might have been, but that it was the result of violence inflicted by the hands of a hu=man being.

The jury in delivering their ver=dict, although they found the defendant guilty, yet they recom=mended him to the mercy of the Court: This verdict it seems to us goes to show that while perhaps the testimony was sufficiently strong

Page 6

to satisfy the rigorous exactious of the law, that yet there was a lurking doubt in their ho minds as to the guilt of the Defendant. Under all the circumstances we are disposed to think that this is a case, in which the clemency of the Executive might be reasonably exercised towards an unfortunate man by commuting his punish=ment, and ~~yet is~~ at the same time satisfy the demands of inexonable justice.

We do not think that a verdict of aquittal would have given a great deal of surprise to those who were present in the Court Room, during the progress of the trial.

We have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your Excellency's Obt svts'

R. V. Booth
E. D. Clark
Counsel for Creed Taylor by appointment of Court.

Vicksburg
Oct. 15. 1870.

To the above statement as prepared

(F)

Page 7

(F) 6-

by M^r. Booth I will add: That while I think the corpus delicti was sufficiently proved to warrant the admission of the declarations of the accused as evi-dence against him, I do not think those declarations were sufficient—regard being had to the manner in which they were made and to other facts in the case—to justify the conclusion that the accused was the guilty agent, and I think the action of the jury in recommending the accused to the mercy of the court conclusively shows that their minds were not at ease upon the question of guilt—for if guilty at all, he was guilty of murder in a most atrocious form.

and I will further state that since the adjournment of the court two of the jurors (the only ones with whom I have conversed and one of them among the most intelligent of the twelve), have told me that they were under the impression that the prac-tical result of a verdict of guilty accompanied by a recommendation such as they gave, would be to send the accused to the penitentiary for life—to be effected either through

Page 8

the power of the court to past such a sentence or through the exercise of its influence with the executive.

I heard a number of persons, who had been present during the trial, express surprise at the verdict and while I do not mean to intimate that the jury acted hastily or improperly. I think the case one in which the ac-cused might very properly have been given the benefit of the doctrine of reasonable doubt. Without setting out in detail the facts upon which my opinions are based, I will simply say that ~~I think~~ without any just considerations calculated to prejudice my judgment in favor of the accused I think the case one in which the Executive would do well to exer-cise its clemency.

Respy^&c

E. D. Clark