The recent execution of an atrocious murderer was witnessed, as all the reporters tell us, by a thousand persons. By what authority such a concourse could have been assembled, we know not: but of this there can be no doubt, it could have been only by a culpable evasion of the law. In the olden time, when any body under the impulse of curiosity or any better or worse motive, could at will form one of the crowd at an execution, the spectators were perhaps some four or five thousand in number: and now, even under the restrictions of the new law, the amateurs of the gallows--men who get the privilege of the ghastly sight by help of some official weakness or abuse--are reckoned a thousand. And such is the morbid curiosity which the law was meant to chasten and thwart, that a Grand Jury the other day is reported to have actually presented themselves in Court to inquire whether they were not officially privileged to attend the execution. We should have been glad if the dry negative which the Judge is reported to have given them had risen to the tone of rebuke. That a body of citizens charged with such high and dignified responsibilities as those of the Grand Jury should have so far forgotten their official, if not personal character, as to make this indecent application, has, we believe, excited but one sentiment--that of disgust--in this community. It would be unjust to leave our readers under the impression that this was an occurrence without precedent. If we do not greatly mistake, quite as disgraceful a violation of the law occurred when Langfeldt was executed. And we do not hesitate to say that, whether they mean it or not, those who have permitted or countenanced these palpable violations of law in the very act of executing its stern decree, have done quite as much to defeat as to enforce its sanctions. But all the revolting story in Spring’s case is not yet told, and we return to our former authority for its shameful details: