In the trial that is now going on in the county court house, viz: State vs. Mrs. Omie Norris and L. Tritt, the question of why was William Morris killed? stands out forcibly, and this will be an important factor in the decision of the jury who will sit in the box.
Did a petty argument, such as Mrs. Norris say was had a the house prior to the killing inflame Tritt with a passion to kill the man who was supposed to be his best friend, the one man of the community who gave him a home and ?? him at all times as one of the family?
Would jealousy on the part of Tritt have caused him to brood over the fact that Norris was the one who stood in the way of his happiness? Could he have killed his friend over a petty argument alone, without something bigger in view, something that was urging him on to a beastie attitude toward the man who stood in his way?
Could the wife have conspired with the slayer of her husband to rid her of the man who had provided for her wants, furnished her a home and was father as best he could be to her children? Could she see in Tritt that which her husband did not possess—a more loyal mate—that she should stand idly by after ?? the passion of the killer?
No matter what the answer to these questions may be—a life has been taken, a family of children has been robbed of a father, a crime has been committed that calls fro the death penalty of one or more.
As for “insanity,” that old pea has been worn out by lawyers and defendants of cold blood murder—temporarily insane means nothing more than being under the influence of the greatest enemy of man--?? Ideas of life, as seen from a narrow standpoint--. One cannot go insane this instant and be sane the next, one cannot be sane a lifetime and go insane just because of a desire to be master of the situation and commit a heinous crime—that is old, worn-out gaff.
Too many people have in recent months been allowed to go without the death penalty being imposed on them after committing a crime that was justifiable with death. Too many excuses are being found by members of the bar for the saving of the life of persons who should fill a felon’s grave.
Blood thirsty? No! But just so long as men are taught that they can kill their personal enemies on the least provocation and get a life sentence in prison, with a chance of being pardoned by a sympathetic governor—just so long as men kill without thinking of the consequence that will follow.
If Lawrence Tritt killed William Norris as has been shown at the preliminary hearing, he should die, the world has no place for a man of that type. If the wife of the slain man conspired with the slayer for the death of her husband, she should also die. If, on the other hand, she is innocent, society should not cast a downward look on her because of the fact that her name was linked with that of the man who slew her husband. BUT LET JUSTICE BE METED OUT.
From the editorial page of The Brevard News, Thursday, Jan. 28, 1926. Starrette & Sterling, Editors. Miss Alma Trowbridge, News Editor
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1926-01-28/ed-1/seq-4/
No comments:
Post a Comment