Thinks Three Lawyers Too Many

     Editor Buffalo Express:—One of the great features connected with the recent tragedy in our city, and one which reflects credit to our countrymen, is that, while the greatest imaginable outrage was committed and was unwarranted as it was heinous, yet the law was allowed to take its full course, and the prisoner was protected from the violence of the infuriated populace. The value is not only that of upholding the law, but it has given a possible opportunity of gaining information in reference to the dangerous class of which the wretch is a representative. For the further support of the dignity of our country and especially of the city of Buffalo it is gratifying to know that the Bar Assosciation [sic] is taking so deep an interest to see that justice is not retared [sic] and that proper regard is had for the rights of the prisoner. But the orderly, intelligent, well-balanced and forbearing lay citizen, no matter where he lives, is well-nigh overwhelmed at the useless and positively disgusting pains that are taken to provide abundant assistance for the miserable reptile who not only admits having planned and executed the foul and inhuman deed, but actually glories in it. Assuming there were no persons present to prove the shooting or that there were possible mitigating circumstances in connection with it, what is the earthly sense of appointing more than one honest young lawyer of fair ability to go through a necessary form? And why must the people pay probably large bills to two former judges, when it would seem to us ignorant laymen as if all that was really necessary was to take testimony from a few of the many witnesses of the crime and then hurry the demon who committed it back into his cell, there to await the execution of his sentence.
     And now we learn that the able senior counsel for the defense, in anticipation of the “severe labor” that will fall to the lot of himself and his co-worker, has applied to the court for further “assistance,” recommending a younger man, who can more readily attend to “all the details” involved. May we not have an explanation of these mysterious proceedings and also learn what, in the name of heaven, is going to be done to take up the time of the court “for nearly a week,” at least as, it is stated, is expected. What is there, beyond the time required to get an impartial jury, that cannot be done in one half or three quarters of an hour, or at most in two or three hours, and that by one bright young lawyer? Please explain.

IMPATIENCE.     

     Buffalo, Sept. 22d.