On Saturday evening we published the final proceedings in the trial of Charles Harrison for the killing of James Hill. During the progress of that trial, we carefully and studiously refrained from indulging in any comments, or in the expression of any views or opinions respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused, notwithstanding the fact that we were frequently importuned upon the subject, and even censured, for our course respecting it. We preferred that a jury and the people should hear, and decide upon the question, and give that decision to the public. That jury failed to agree, and the accused was set at liberty. Having stood his trial and been discharged, his life cannot be again put in jeopardy for the same offence, and of course any remarks we may now make cannot effect him, but may be of benefit to the people of Denver.
    The Harrison case has proved to be a most remarkable and singular one. The evidence elicited--almost wholly from eye-witnesses of the bloody transaction--is of the most diverse and contradictory nature. One man testifies that Hill's pistol was not drawn, but remained in the holster after he was removed from the room. Another, who had no better opportunity of seeing what transpired, says that Hill drew his pistol first, and was in the act of presenting it when his hand was seized by Harrison. One swears that Hill's pistol dropped upon the floor, and another that both his and Harrison's fell to the floor;--still another tesifies, in his direct evidence, that at the time Harrison commenced firing, "could see deceased's right hand across his left breast, and in his hand a pistol;" but in his cross-examination, the same witness says, "saw deceased's right hand raised, but it contained no pistol."
    These inconsistencies seem strange, and give rise to surmises and doubts in the mind of the public, where the evidence was so positive and direct. There was no room for conjecture; not an instant passed that interested eyes were not turned upon the actors in the bloody drama, yet no two setts [sic] of eyes saw alike.
    Now to consider the justification of the act, basing our conclusions upon the superior weight of testimony, and what do we arrive at? Hill had been drunk and boisterous during the day, and some woman had heard him threaten the life of Mr. Harrison; probably just such a vague, unfounded rumor as our citizens have heard a hundred times before, and very likely based upon a very slender foundation. There is not one word of evidence to show that there had ever been any difficulty between the parties, or any reason for Mr. Harrison's fearing violence at the hands of Mr. Hill; on the contrary, when the latter reached the Criterion, on the fatal evening, he seems to have addressed no remarks or words to Mr. Harrison at all; but was talking over an old election difficulty with Mr. Wynkoop, on whom he did draw a pistol, but when ordered to do so by Mr. W., put it away. He was boisterous, as drunken men are apt to be, and the bar-keeper requested him to leave the hall. He refused to go, and replied with a profane and obscene epithet, which was not resented by the person to whom it was addressed, but by Mr. Harrison, his employer, and for that he took his life. Was that sentence sufficient provocation for the act?
    Here, admitting that Hill first drew his pistol, according to the evidence of some of the witnesses, we are told at the same time before firing, Harrison caught Hill's right, or pistol-hand in his left, and immediately began firing with his right. Now was Mr. Harrison's life in jeopardy after he had caught Hill's arm? Was it necessary for him to take Hill's life to save his own; and if not, how was the killing justifiable? There were certainly enough men present to disarm one drunken man, and keep him from doing harm. Harrison's remark, when he ceased shooting, did not indicate that he considered his life in danger, but simply that it was what he would do to "any man who would call any one of his employees a son of a b--h." If this is sufficient provocation to justify the taking of human life, it is time for the people of Denver to know it. Let every citizen realize how cheaply his life is held; and also consider that if that is sufficient cause, a little less provocation may justify the same result, and be careful and circumspect in his language.
    We have not written the foregoing in any spirit of vindictiveness, but to show to our people the picture in its true light. Our assumption that the result of the trial was to justify the homicide, is not supported by the verdict of a jury, but by the failure of that jury to find a verdict, and the fact--as we are informed--that it was, by a large majority, in favor of acquittal, and lastly, by the fact that Mr. Harrison was discharged by the court. There is a feeling among many of our citizens--pent up and smothered though it may be--that exact and even-handed justice was not done; yet they will abide the action of the city courts, created by themselves.
    We hope that before many more months shall have passed, public opinion will support the city government in the prohibition of the carrying of arms; a reform which would have prevented this last bloody stain upon the name and history of our fair young city. Another thing we hope to see, is a place of confinement for such men as Hill, when madly or dangerously drunk, and particularly when they have made threats, so that they may return to sober sense, without the power to injure any one.

Source:

Unknown, "Reflections," Daily Rocky Mountain News, Denver, J.T., Monday, 10 December, 1860, page 2.