World's Toughest Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
buzzard767

buzzard767

golfaknifeaholic
Gold Site Supporter
Frontier Death Sentence

DEATH SENTENCE 1881 The following is a verbatim transcript of a sentence imposed upon a defendant convicted of murder in the Federal District Court of the Territory of New Mexico many years ago by a United States Judge, sitting at Taos in an adobe stable used as a temporary courtroom:


"JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES, in a few short weeks, it will be Spring. The snows of Winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won't be there."

"The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won't be here to see."

"From every treetop some wild woods songster will carol his mating song, butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the bee will hum happy as it pursues-its accustomed vocation, the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature, JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES, will be glad, but you. You won't be here to enjoy it because I command the sheriff or some other officers of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead."

"And then, JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, copper-colored, blood-thirsty, throat-cutting, chili-eating, sheep-herding, murdering son-of-a-bitch."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. GONZALES (1881) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NEW MEXICO TERRITORY SESSIONS

Shame the Judge wasn't more eloquent!!!!! :D
 
Well, no doubt about what happened to JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES.


909460.jpg




​
 
Judge sounds like a damned freak.

Sure the freak is eloquent, in a sick way.

Since when has chili-eating and sheep-herding been a justification, even in part, for a hanging?

It's sad to see this kind of stuff appeals to people. What a shame.


0
 
Or being copper-colored. Judges in those days, even federal judges, were not well educated, especially in the wild west, and what passed for justice would turn the stomachs of most people today.

Here's more on the matter from AmericanHeritage.com:

HANG DOWN YOUR HEAD, JOSE MANUEL MIGUEL XAVIER GONZALES, OR JOSE MARIA MARTIN, OR JOSE MANIAH, OR JOSE MARIA MARTINEZ, OR …

Our “Postscripts” feature “Of Cruel and Unusual Death Sentences” in the October, 1977, issue called forth an unusual run of mail from readers. The item had to do with an 1881 death sentence passed down by an anonymous (we assumed) judge on the luckless José Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, a sentence that combined eloquence and racist venom in about equal portions. At the end of the feature, we wondered if any of our readers could enlighten us as to the origins of this singular example of jurisprudential excess.

They could indeed. While the name of the defendant has come down to us variously as José Maria Martin, José Maniah, and José Maria Martinez, most of our respondents agreed that he was a Mexican sheepherder who had killed a local cowboy in New Mexico over a disputed card game. Some recounted the legend that the accused later escaped jail and died some years afterward when he fell off a horse. Almost all attributed the death sentence itself to the infamous Judge Isaac ("Hanging Judge") Parker, a jurist, it was said, who would string up a man quite as cheerfullv as he would kill flies. And as often.

Others disagreed, and from the evidence supplied us, they appear to have made a good case. Among these particularly diligent readers was Harry L. Bigbee, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. “This entire matter, in my opinion,” he writes, “is a distorted, fictionalized version of an actual sentence imposed by Judge Kirby Benedict in about 1864 in Taos, New Mexico.” He then goes on to cite several contemporary sources, including a version of the death sentence that appeared in an 1864 letter to the editor of the Santa Fe Weekly New Mexican. The recipient in this case was one José Maria Martin, but in most other respects the language of the sentence is nearly identical to that attributed to Judge Parker. Consider this passage, for example: “José Maria Martin, it is now the springtime, in a little while the grass will be springing up green in these beautiful valleys, and on these broad mesas and mountain sides, flowers will be blooming; birds will be singing their sweet carols, and nature will be putting on her most gorgeous and her most attractive robes, and life will be pleasant. .. but none of this for you, José Maria Martin.”

Another reader, George Johnson of Wausau, Wisconsin, pointed out that Judge Benedict was an old acquaintance of Abraham Lincoln, as well as a’ twofisted drinker whose alcoholic didos sometimes got out of hand. This apparently did not upset Lincoln, who resisted all demands that Benedict be removed from office. “We have been friends for thirty years,” Lincoln reportedly said in 1863. “He may imbibe to excess, but Benedict drunk knows more law than all the others on the bench in New Mexico sober.” In any case, drunk or sober, it seems clear that Kirby Benedict was the poet on the bench.
 
I know not of the case nor the story. However, it somehow reminds me of:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrsDT02OcE[/ame]
 
Wart said:
Judge sounds like a damned freak.

Sure the freak is eloquent, in a sick way.

Since when has chili-eating and sheep-herding been a justification, even in part, for a hanging?

It's sad to see this kind of stuff appeals to people. What a shame.


0
Click to expand...

No more so than the freaks who are let free because of the cowardice of some judges to deal with crimes in such a manner as to deter others from committing the same crimes. If you know you can walk from a liberal judge, what's the deterrent from committing the crimes?

Regarding "chili-eating and sheep herding," You are groping at straws to avoid dealing with the real crime; MURDER. Your argument lacks any substance, and is merely an attempt to draw away from the facts at hand. Calling the criminal a "chili-eating sheep herder" is no different that you referring to the judge as a freak. Maybe you should contact your local judges and invite these monsters to live in your house so you can rehabilitate them and keep them from the hanging tree. Walk the talk.
 
JoeV said:
No more so than the freaks who are let free because of the cowardice of some judges to deal with crimes in such a manner as to deter others from committing the same crimes. If you know you can walk from a liberal judge, what's the deterrent from committing the crimes?

Regarding "chili-eating and sheep herding," You are groping at straws to avoid dealing with the real crime; MURDER. Your argument lacks any substance, and is merely an attempt to draw away from the facts at hand. Calling the criminal a "chili-eating sheep herder" is no different that you referring to the judge as a freak. Maybe you should contact your local judges and invite these monsters to live in your house so you can rehabilitate them and keep them from the hanging tree. Walk the talk.
Click to expand...



You usually get pissed at things that aren't true?

:applause:

The moment I found out this story is a fiction my irritation at the story went away.

The only thing remaining is the amusement at how silly it is that some hold onto fictions as if they are facts. And there are many things that be written about those people, but I won't.
 
simma down now

We have an imperfect legal system but it is important that everybody plays their part. The defense attorney tries to find holes in the prosecutors argument. The prosecutor tries to build an airtight case. Either the jury will decide someone's fate or the judge will depending upon whether the defendant wants a jury trial. A good judge is basically a referee and decides what information can Be properly and fairly brought into trial. If each element works as it should we have a better chance at getting to the truth and finding justice.

We want defense attorneys to test the prosecutor's case and test it hard. Someone's liberty or life is at stake. Some defense attorneys may seem like miserable folks because they often are seen doing a thankless task respresenting the allegedly guilty or even the truly guilty. However, I would rather see a gulity man go free (and I say this as a victim of crime) than to have someone's constitutional rights trampled on. I prefer living in a free society, thank you very much.

I think our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job when they created this experiment we call The United States of America.
 
Wart said:
You usually get pissed at things that aren't true?

:applause:

The moment I found out this story is a fiction my irritation at the story went away.
Click to expand...
But no before labeling the judge as a freak. Remember who was the first one to put a label on the judge...the Wartmeister.

The only thing remaining is the amusement at how silly it is that some hold onto fictions as if they are facts. And there are many things that be written about those people, but I won't.
Click to expand...
You appear to have all the answers. Perhaps you should look at situations from both sides before jumping to conclusions and starting your name calling. You have a pattern of doing that, that has become obvious. I screen captured the last tirade you got into with your name calling before a Mod had to delete the thread. If a thread makes your blood boil, perhaps you get the facts before running your mouth.

Have a nice day, Wart.
 
PieSusan said:
simma down now

We have an imperfect legal system but it is important that everybody plays their part. The defense attorney tries to find holes in the prosecutors argument. The prosecutor tries to build an airtight case. Either the jury will decide someone's fate or the judge will depending upon whether the defendant wants a jury trial. A good judge is basically a referee and decides what information can Be properly and fairly brought into trial. If each element works as it should we have a better chance at getting to the truth and finding justice.

We want defense attorneys to test the prosecutor's case and test it hard. Someone's liberty or life is at stake. Some defense attorneys may seem like miserable folks because they often are seen doing a thankless task respresenting the allegedly guilty or even the truly guilty. However, I would rather see a gulity man go free (and I say this as a victim of crime) than to have someone's constitutional rights trampled on. I prefer living in a free society, thank you very much.

I think our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job when they created this experiment we call The United States of America.
Click to expand...
Well said!

And regardless of whether the tale is true or not, don't forget that in the 1880s -- and indeed until the middle of the 20th Century in much of this country -- non-whites were often convicted based primarily on accusations rather than evidence.
 
PieSusan said:
simma down now
Click to expand...

Same comment here. No need to get upset over a story of a judge in the old west.

What would you think about a Texas Judge who waylaid Jay Gould by stopping his train and inviting Mr Gould to his saloon for a drink. A report that Gould had died in a train crash circulated and caused a panic on the New York Stock Exchange.

Judge Bean didn't seem concerned at all.

Jim
 
PieSusan said:
simma down now

We have an imperfect legal system but it is important that everybody plays their part. The defense attorney tries to find holes in the prosecutors argument. The prosecutor tries to build an airtight case. Either the jury will decide someone's fate or the judge will depending upon whether the defendant wants a jury trial. A good judge is basically a referee and decides what information can Be properly and fairly brought into trial. If each element works as it should we have a better chance at getting to the truth and finding justice.

We want defense attorneys to test the prosecutor's case and test it hard. Someone's liberty or life is at stake. Some defense attorneys may seem like miserable folks because they often are seen doing a thankless task representing the allegedly guilty or even the truly guilty. However, I would rather see a gulity man go free (and I say this as a victim of crime) than to have someone's constitutional rights trampled on. I prefer living in a free society, thank you very much.

I think our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job when they created this experiment we call The United States of America.
Click to expand...

Well said.


JoeV said:
But no before labeling the judge as a freak. Remember who was the first one to put a label on the judge...the Wartmeister.
Click to expand...

WartMeister ... Cool! I like that!!

No, I'm afraid I was acting as though the story was true, I didn't think this particular OP would post such story without making sure it to be true. As it turns out the story is a blantant falsehood.

I guess my faith was misplaced.

It happens.
 
On a lighter note, consider this factual except from Morris Udall's book, Too Funny to be President, about a real lawyer and a real judge from the wild west:
[SIZE=+0][This] brings to mind Arizona's own Henry Fountain Ashurst, one of the state's first senators, who was known as the "Dean of Inconsistency." Ashurst was proud of the title; "the clammy hand of consistency has never rested for long upon my shoulder," he boasted. Another time, Ashurst proclaimed, "There has never been added to these vices of mine the withering, embalming vice of consistency."[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Ashurst was a cowboy. Although he never went to school, he could recite every word that Shakespeare ever wrote. Barry Goldwater remembers as a boy meeting Ashurst when the senator used to stand on the street "with a black frock coat on and striped pants and a big red carnation, and every evening at five o'clock he'd recite Shakespeare to the secretaries coming out of the buildings. He was a good-looking guy and he would have women all around him."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]Like many aspiring politicians, Ashurst thought a law degree would advance his career. According to Goldwater, "At that time the law firm that took care of my family's business was owned by the Ellenwood family, and old man Ellenwood said, 'Mr. Ashurst, if you'll go to the University of Michigan and get your law degree, we'll take you into the office.' In those days all you had to do to become a lawyer was to have another lawyer say you were competent. So Henry Fountain went to Michigan for two weeks and then returned to Phoenix. And old man Ellenwood said he was competent, so Henry Fountain became a lawyer. He couldn't even spell it."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]Here now, more Ashurstisms.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]On being defeated: "The welfare of the United States, and the happiness of our people, does not hang on the presence of Henry Fountain Ashurst in the Senate. When that realization first came to me, I was overwhelmed by the horror of it, but now it is a source of infinite comfort."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]When beaten: "No man is fit to be a senator . . . unless he is willing to surrender his political life for great principle."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]On growing old: "Always stand erect, and don't eat too much. . . ."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]On communism: "The fanatical delusion of communism will evaporate."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]On learning to speak: "I used to recite my speeches walking up a hill. It gives you wind power. I could throw fifty-six-pound words across the Grand Canyon."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]The best example of Ashurst's "fifty-six-pound words" is this now-legendary opening statement, made before an unlettered, earthy justice of the peace in Winslow, Arizona, circa 1908:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Your Honor, as I approached the trial of this case today, my heart was burdened with crushing and gloomy forebodings and the immense responsibility of my client's welfare bowed me down with apprehensions. A cold fear gripped my heart as I dwelt upon the possibility that through some oversight or shortcoming of mine there might ensue dreadful consequences to my client, and I shrank within myself as the ordeal became more imminent.[/SIZE]​
[SIZE=+0]Yet the nearer my uncertain steps brought me to this tribunal of justice, distinguished as it has been for years as the one court of the rugged West where fame attended the wisdom and justice of the decisions of Your Honor, a serene confidence came to my troubled emotions, and the raging waters of tumultuous floods that had surged hotly but a moment before were stilled. Your Honor, I was no longer appalled, nor longer feared the issue in this case. Aye, I reflected that throughout the long years of your administration as judge, there had grown up here a halo, as it were, of honor and glory illumining Your Honor's record, eloquent of a fame as deserved as that of the chastity of Caesar's wife, a fame that will augment with the flight of years and with increasing luster, light the pathway of humanity down the ages so long as the heaving billows of the stormy Mediterranean shall beat vainly upon the beetling cliffs of Gibraltar. . . .
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Justice Waltron: Sit down, Mr. Ashurst. You can't blow any smoke up this Court's ass.[/SIZE]
​
 
PieSusan said:
I think our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job when they created this experiment we call The United States of America.
Click to expand...

I agree, Susan. The country we currently live in is governed by Napoleonic Code, i.e., you are guilty until proven innocent. There are no jury trials: the evidence is submitted in writing to the judge and the judge decides. There is an appeals process, but it is slow. This is gradually changing and the Mexican constitution was amended last year to allow for better due process. But it will take years to educate the judges and make it better. I know that many people are impatient with the so-called "rights" of criminals, but our constitution is what people have fought and died for. It is not perfect, but it works.
 
Wart said:
I guess my faith was misplaced.

It happens.
Click to expand...
You now qualify for a cabinet position in the new administration. They have all made mistakes for which they expect unconditional forgiveness because of their positions. And THAT is fact, not fiction. The rest of us will continue to be punished and made an example of if we mess up.
 
I am not happy with you JoeV, or you Wart. In this thread or the knife thread I feel like I walked into a martial argument and am very uncomfortable and feel awkward visiting here.
Neither oif you will win. So please, give up the battling.
This is a tit for tat and neither of you are considerate of the others here that may feel the same as me.
This is not the case of the wheel that squeeks the loudest.
It's history and neither of you are correct, or can change it.
It's subjective.

Take it to a PM, please
 
Last edited:
I'm closing the thread. It has strayed too far off topic. Let's get back to our purpose for being here.

If anyone wants it reopened talk to Doc.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top