day, as the mail coach was passing the spot, the attention of the postillions was attracted by the horses shying at a bundle lying in the road, which on examination proved to contain a human head and two hands wrapped in a handkerchief; & little further on they discovered, in a similar manner, the trunk which the laborers had just left there. The affair was thus brought to the notice of the authorities, and an investigation was immediately commenced. The body appeared to be that. of a man fifty years of age, in good health, and the articles of dress he wore showed that his condition of life was respectable. The sack enclosing the trunk was marked with the initials P. R. W., and the shirt bore the letters J. M. H., but none could tell whom did either initials represent. The laborers remembered, however, that on the morning of the day they found the corpse, about ten o'clock, they observed a carriage drawn by four black horses, with a coachman and postillion, standing in front of the new inn at a spot called the Fleishgaffel. It started on the road to Lubeck whilst they were near, and at such a pace that when it reached the Hogenberg, where the road is steep, they lost signt of it; and it was exactly at this spot they afterwards found the body. Later in the day they observed the same carriage pass through Lutzen on its way back to Hamburgh.

When the news reached the latter city, it was suspected at once that the mutilated corpse was that of a tobacco merchant named Wächtler, who, according to the report of his wife, had left home for a long journey on Wednesday, the 22d; but the fact that no one saw him going, or knew anything of his intention to do so, created suspicion at once, especially among those who were aware that the husband and wife had frequent disagreements. All was vague, however, until a person named Hennings came forward on the 29th, and stated that he had been applied to by Frau Wächtler some days previously for one of his livery carriages to convey her as far as Lubeck, where she expected to meet her husband. She was very anxious that he would set out on Thursday evening, but he refused to travel by night, and they agreed to start at an early hour on Friday. As she mentioned that she should have rather a cumbersome package to carry, he recommended that she should allow him to fetch it and arrange it in the carriage beforehand; but she remarked that it was not necessary; that she would rather see to it herself, as it was something she was very careful about. Even in the morning he was not permitted to see it; he was invited up stairs to

take a cup of coffee, and while he was absent it was carried out and deposited in the carriage.

He did not think there was anything very remarkable in this, but when they reached the Hogenberg, the lady called out to him to stop, that she felt very ill; at the same time she expressed a wish that himself and the driver would walk a little in advance, taking the child who accompanied her with them. In a few minutes they returned and found her apparently quite recovered. Soon after, the same thing occurred, but this time she told Hennings that she felt so ill she could not proceed any further, but wished to return to Hamburgh. All this seemed natural enough to him, and he had no suspicion that there was anything wrong. It was different, however, when he heard that a body had been found exactly at the spot where the carriage had stopped. Those acquainted with Wachtler were called upon to examine the body, and their report confirmed the worst surmises. A guard was immediately placed over the house to prevent Frau Wächtler from communicating with persons from without until she was sent to prison. Many circumstances were now brought to light which tended strongly to show that she was the guilty person. A laundress named Neumann came forward and stated that, on the morning of the 22d, Frau Wächtler had sent for her and given her a bloodstained bed to wash, with strict injunctions to bring it back clean on the following Saturday. The laundress said that when she came to the house she found her "sitting on the bed as white as a corpse." It was first suspected that the servants must have been privy to the murder; but on an investigation it was found that there was no ground for any such suspicion; even her paramour, a hairdresser of the neighborhood, was entirely exonerated, although arrested as an accomplice. The substance of the evidence given by the servants of the accused is as follows: At halfpast two o'clock Frau Wächtler awoke them and ordered coffee to be immediately prepared for her husband, who, she said, was about to start on a journey. The cook went below to get it ready, but she desired the waiting-maid to stay beside her. When the coffee was brought up they drank it together, the wife sitting on the side of her husband's bed, and looking very pale; the bed-clothes were drawn up, and they supposed their master was asleep. After some time, seeing that he did not stir they enquired for him, and were informed that he had just stepped to a neighboring room to see to the

packing of some wares he intended to take with him, and would be back immediately. It was after this she sent for the laundress as already stated, and then shut herself up for some hours. When the servants were readmitted to her room, she appeared to have been washing linen; the water was red, and there were some stains of blood on the floor. One of these seemed to point to an adjoining room, and the cook, whose curiosity was somewhat aroused, went there, and saw three sacks standing together, two containing soiled linen, but in the middle one she thought she felt a human head. Horror-stricken, she hastened out of the room, but could not resist the feeling that urged her to return. This time she was satisfied that she felt not only the head, but also the knees and calves of the legs. It occurred to her that it must be the body of her master; but she thought it impossible that her mistress could have contrived and executed such a deed alone.

But the worst witness against her was her own daughter, a child seven years old. She was accustomed to sleep with her father; and she related that on the night in question, just as the clock was striking two, her mother lifted her out of the father's bed, and had her placed in another, with her brothers. The suddenness of the action seems to have thoroughly awakened her; for although she was bade go to sleep again directly, she found it impossible to do so; and as she lay feigning sleep, to satisfy her mother, she observed her leave the room and presently return with a hatchet, with which she struck the father. "Father stirred a little, and there was blood on the sheet. Then mother sat down on father's bed, and drew the clothes up over him, and I went to sleep."

The trial was postponed three times because Frau Wachtler accused other persons of having committed the crime; but the only effect this had on her fate was to protract her trial, which in consequence of it lasted three years. Each of those she charged with the murder, was fully acquitted, and proved to be innocent; finally, when she saw that all her plans had failed, and that all her money would not save her, she made a full confession of her guilt two or three days before she was executed.

It is painful to reflect that in not one of these cases would the law have been vindicated had they recently occurred in this country. The worst of the criminals would have escaped under one pretext or another. The most probable result

would be that the jury would not agree; that there would be at least two or three whose "gallantry" would not permit them to condemn a woman. If, perchance, all agreed, it would probably be to acquit her on the ground that she had received some slight or insult which no lady should be expected to submit to; if the crime was proved to be too deliberate, so that it could be considered in no other light than as premeditated, then it would be found that she was insane just at the moment she committed the deed, but now quite sane and fully able to resume her former position in society.

Not only are law and justice permitted to be made a farce ofin this way by our jurymen, encouraged by a vitiated public opinion, but disgrace is brought on the bench as well as the bar at the same time. It is hardly necessary to explain how this is done, for it is notorious. Who that knows anything of our jurisprudence is not aware that nine-tenths of the lawyers who undertake to defend our female malefactora act more like pugilists, or fish-women, than like advocates? Let the most exemplary person that ever lived appear as a witness against these "learned gentlemen," and he is sure to be treated as if he had devoted his whole life to thieving and lying. A stranger would think that it is he and not the prisoner at the bar who is on trial. But who would abuse even a murderer as these pettifoggers often abuse ladies and gentlemen whose only wish in the case is to state the truth when called upon by the authorities to do so? It is obvious that, even were our jurymen disposed to do their duty honestly," without favor or affection, malice or ill will," the cause of justice would be greatly injured by this disgraceful system, since there are but few whose zeal for the vindication of the law is such that they will subject themselves to be thus used for it. Nay, many suffer serious injury themselves rather than submit to such an ordeal. The class of lawyers alluded to pursue this course whether their clients are male or female; but for the latter, they think they may throw off all restraint, and bully and abuse all who will not do as they direct them.

It is not alone in criminal cases that our jurymen and lawyers violate their trust in this shameful manner; in civil cases they pursue the same course and receive the same applause from the mob. In the latter as well as in the former, their object is not to discover what is right and just, or what is wrong and unjust, and proclaim it accordingly, but to show

that a woman is right whatever she does; that she is no criminal, although it is clearly proved that she has committed murder, and that she is a virtuous woman, although the proof that she is the reverse is equally clear.

Those who administer the law in this way would have the world believe that they are very manly; but the truth is that they are very unmanly, and that none despise them more than the sensible part of the sex whom they pretend to honor. If the jurymen who give the sort of verdicts to which we have referred would appear in their box dressed in the largest hoop petticoats, they would be much more in character than they do in their ordinary costume; and the same garments would serve the pettifoggers much more fitly than gowns. In short, it is no wonder, for the reasons mentioned, that all classes have lost confidence in trial by jury. Had it not been for this, we would have been among the first to denounce the recent trials by court-martial. Not because the military court has not done its duty conscientiously and fairly, for we think it has; but because we should not like to see such a precedent established, if we saw any reason to expect that the ordinary courts would vindicate the law and punish the guilty. But there was not the least; the proceedings in a civil court would only have added to the number of legal, or rather illegal farces with which our jurisprudence has been disgraced during the last seven years.

It is obvious that we are not peculiar in this view of the case; for then there would have been no court-martial after the war was over. Our rulers felt convinced that certain parties were guilty of murder in its worst form; but they felt almost equally certain that an ordinary jury would either disagree about their guilt, or acquit them altogether, and thus encourage others to imitate their example. None regretted more than we that a woman should be included among those doomed to the gallows; but we felt at the same time that, if a woman was found as guilty as the men, she ought to suffer the same penalty with them. None will deny that military officers who have distinguished themselves in defence of their country, have as much gallantry as the jurymen who acquit all women; as much as the pettifoggers who abuse all that give testimony against any woman; as much as the crowd of idlers or malefactors who throw up their hats in triumph when any woman is acquitted. Who would hesitate for a moment to say which of the four parties would