Discussion 3B

profileENN
AlexanderHolmesTrial.pdf

Christianson, Stephen. "Alexander Holmes Trial: 1842." Great American Trials. 2002. Retrieved

December 30, 2015 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-

3498200058.html

On March 13, 1841, an American ship, the William Brown, left Liverpool, England for

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition to her cargo, she carried 17 crewmen and 65 passengers,

who were mostly Scots and Irish emigrants. On the night of April 19, 250 miles from

Newfoundland, theWilliam Brown struck an iceberg and began to sink rapidly. There were two

lifeboats, one small and one large. The captain and most of the crew took the small lifeboat, and

the passengers crowded aboard the large lifeboat. There was not enough space on the large

lifeboat for all the passengers, and 31 died on board the William Brown when it sank.

First Mate Francis Rhodes, Alexander William Holmes, and another seaman commanded the

large lifeboat. The passengers were still dressed in their night clothes and suffered terribly in the

cold Atlantic weather, which was made worse by a pelting rain. The two lifeboats stayed

together through the night but separated the morning of the 20th because the captain, George L.

Harris, thought there was a better chance of rescue if the two boats took different directions.

Rhodes said that his boat was overcrowded and that some people would have to be thrown

overboard to keep it from capsizing. Captain Harris said, "I know what you'll have to do. Don't

speak of that now. Let it be the last resort." Throughout the day of the 20th and into the night, the

rain and the waves worsened. The boat began to leak and fill with water, despite constant bailing.

Around ten o'clock that night, Rhodes cried out in despair, "This work won't do. Help me, God.

Men, go to work." Holmes and the other seaman began throwing people overboard. They threw

14 men and two women into the freezing water. They chose single men only, spared the married

men on board, and threw the two women overboard only because they were sisters of a man

already thus ejected and had demanded to be sacrificed with their kin. None of the crew was

thrown out.

Holmes Tried for Manslaughter

The next day, on the morning of the 21st, Holmes' lifeboat was spotted by a ship and rescued.

Captain Harris' lifeboat was rescued by another ship six days later. Upon reaching Philadelphia,

the news of the fate of the William Brown was an instant sensation, generating a great deal of

public outrage against the crew. U.S. District Attorney William M. Meredith charged Holmes

and Rhodes with manslaughter, which is a lesser degree of homicide than murder because it

means killing without malice. Rhodes fled the city, never to be found, so Holmes was tried alone.

Holmes' chief defense lawyer was David Paul Brown, and the trial began on April 13, 1842. One

of Meredith's assistants, Mr. Dallas (historical records do not indicate his first name) opened for

the prosecution:

[Holmes'] defense is that the homicide was necessary to self-preservation. First, then, we ask:

was the homicide thus necessary? That is to say, was the danger instant, overwhelming, leaving

no choice or means, no moment for deliberation? For, unless the danger were of this sort, the

prisoner, under any admission, had no right, without notice or consultation, or lot, to sacrifice

the lives of 16 fellow beings.

Holmes' defense lawyers countered that, in the dangerous circumstances Holmes was placed in,

he was not required to wait until the last second to act in self-preservation:

In other words, he need not wait until the certainty of the danger has been proved, past doubt, by

its result. Yet this is the doctrine of the prosecution. They ask us to wait until the boat has

sunk.…They tell us to wait until all are drowned.

After the prosecution and the defense had rested, Judge Baldwin (historical records do not

indicate his first name) gave his instructions to the jury. Although he recognized the principle

that self-preservation was a defense to homicide, he stated that there were some important

exceptions. One of these exceptions was when someone had accepted a duty to others that

implied that he or she would put his or her life at risk before risking the lives of the others. Judge

Baldwin held that seamen like Holmes had accepted such a duty, and that therefore self-

preservation was not an adequate defense to the charge of manslaughter:

[W]e must look, not only to the jeopardy in which the parties are, but also to the relatibons in

which they stand. The slayer must be under no obligation to make his own safety secondary to

the safety of others.… Such … is the relation which exists on shipboard. The passenger stands in

a position different from that of the officers and seamen.… The sailor… is bound to set a greater

value on the life of others than on his own.

After 16 hours of deliberation, the jury found Holmes guilty on April 23, 1842. As the official

court report notes, the verdict was given "with some difficulty," and was accompanied by the

jury's recommendation for mercy. Judge Baldwin sentenced Holmes to six months in prison and

a $20 fine. There was some public sympathy for Holmes, but a movement by the Seamen's

Friend Society for a presidential pardon came to nothing.

The Alexander Holmes trial dictated that seamen have a duty to their passengers that is superior

even to their own lives. Further, it held that the ancient defense of self-preservation was not

always adequate in a homicide prosecution if the accused was under a special obligation to the

deceased.

—Stephen G. Christianson

CASE OVERVIEW:

Defendant: Alexander William Holmes

Crime Charged: Manslaughter

Chief Defense Lawyer: David Paul Brown

Chief Prosecutor: William M.Meredith

Judge: Baldwin (historical records do not indicate his first name)

Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dates of Trial: April 13-23, 1842

Verdict: Guilty

Sentence: 6 months in prison and a $20 fine

SIGNIFICANCE: In the Alexander Holmes trial, the court held that self-preservation was not

always a defense to homicide.