The Jeffersonian

GEN. LANE'S TRIAL

Special Correspondent to the Tribune.

LAWRENCE, K. T., June 21, 1858.

For several days past the exciting subject here has been the preliminary examination of Gen. J. H. Lane, before a magistrate, for shooting Mr. Jenkins. Although having no necessary connection with Kansas politics, the affair has received to some extent a political aspect. The rivals and enemies of Gen. Lane have used it as a means of brushing him out of their way, and his friends, for similar reasons, have endeavored to palliate it. It is for this reason that this investigation has assumed political importance. Extensive reports of this investigation are being made and will be published. The examination will consume several days more, when Lane will probably be committed for trial, as, I presume, he has no desire to be acquitted in a mere preliminary examination.

The importance given to the affair of this stage is, doubtless, owing to political considerations.

So far the testimony is very much mixed. By the evidence for the defense, as given on Saturday, it would appear that the shooting was done in self defense. I have not been able to form a decided opinion as to the relative merits of the case. I regard it as involving this question—whether Lane shot Mr. Jenkins in strict self-defense, or on a point of chivalrous pride. If the latter, there is no excuse for it, especially in a man in his position. If the former, there is no man who might not have been placed in a condition equally unfortunate, and been driven to commit an act which he might regret. Although I have not spoken to Gen. Lane since the occurrence, I have been informed that he regrets it deeply, and has even said that he would rather occupy the place of Jenkins than his own.

Against Lane there is the evidence that the party shot was still at some distance from him, and the obvious fact that his personal danger must be greater after he fired than it could be before it, as an armed party accompanied Jenkins. In Lane's favor there is the unquestionable fact that Jenkins, with an armed party, in hostile attitude, invaded Lane's premises, and were engaged in demolishing his fences. By the testimony of Mr. Gates, it appears that two shots were fired at Gen. Lane before he shot Jenkins, and if this is substantiated it would acquit him both legally and morally. Sheriff Walker also testified that Green, who was with Jenkins, said that if his (Green's) pistol had gone off when the cap burst, Lane would not have shot Jenkins.

At the investigation here several persons, prominent men, have been very active, and exhibited a desire, to say the least of it, to see justice done. The testimony of Judge Smith was unquestionably bitter. The feeling thus exhibited has the effect of creating a popular feeling, on the other hand in Lane's favor. It is regarded as a political warfare among men.

All this is extremely unfortunate. The ends of justice demand an impartial investigation untouched by bias. It is due to public morals that nothing should intervene to give the matter any bearing but its simple one, apart from political or personal considerations. No friendship for or enmity to Gen. Lane, should be permitted to enter into the account. As the investigation so far proves Lane has either shot Jenkins in strict self-defense or on a point of pride, they invading his premises, and evidently on hostile business. In no case would a jury anywhere return a verdict of murder. But in all such instances grave questions will arise. A man who occupies a public position is held responsible not only for the literal justice of his acts, but for their wisdom. It would have required a very high order and delicate sense of morality in any one occupying Gen. Lane's situation to have retreated before the aggressor, and preferred the scoffs of the unthinking multitude, than by remaining to have been precipitated into the necessity of taking human life. As a Southern man and a Kentuckian, Gen. Lane would have lost his caste by doing so. The man shot had been known to express the opinion that "Lane was a coward." It is even charged by Lane's friends that the whole thing was a conspiracy to destroy the prestige of his name and popularity by "backing him down." How many of our Southern Hotspurs in Congress are there who would have done differently from him if placed in his position—admitting the truth of the strongest evidence against him?

But while this may explain, it cannot palliate any such act. We know that it is not only a misfortune, but a grievous wrong that some one has been guilty of. It may have been the deceased, who has thus paid the fearful penalty of his fault. On the other hand, if it be proven that Gen. Lane shot this man in simple self-defense, let him stand acquitted before the world. But if it was merely a point of "chivalrous" refusal to "be driven," as has been said here, "like a dog to his kennel," then let the public mind hold him responsible for such sentiment—no matter how common or how popular. In this respect, the public morals need correction elsewhere as well as here.