"But the cottage was not discovered on the day the body was

discovered. On the night of the 22d of May Captain Schuettler tells

you that he put a guard there, and next morning he, with Captain

Wing, visited this Carlson cottage, which is almost under the

doorsteps of this defendant, O'Sullivan, within ten seconds' walk.

They examined and they found what was said to be blood and the

floor painted over. On the Sunday morning, the 5th--the morning

after Wardell saw these two men enter the cottage, he saw spots of

blood on the wall. They found the carpet gone, the trunk gone, the

trunk strap not there, but the furniture was there. The pillows

were without cases, the bureau was standing out from the wall and

there was the chair with its arm broken and evidence of the crime

having been committed there.

"In the cottage was found the key, and the learned counsel says he

will show you something about that key. We shall show all there is

about that key. We never pretended that it was anything but a

common key. It is a common key to unlock a common lock. You

remember that evidence, the lock was hanging onto the hasp, showing

that they had not a key to unlock it. It does not matter whether it

was a common lock or a common key or not. The key that unfastened

that lock had blood upon it and it was found in the Carlson

cottage, with paint upon it, or what seemed to be paint, of the

same color as the paint that was upon the floor. Do you want

anything else in reference to that key and lock? That was found in

that cottage and that key unlocked the lock; and that lock was on

that trunk that Simonds purchased at Revell's, and which was found

on Evanston road within three-quarters of a mile of the place where

the body was found, and within a quarter of a mile of the place

where the clothes were found that were worn by Dr. Cronin on the

night he left home.

"What other evidence do you want to show that that trunk came out

of that cottage? In that trunk was found hair. I will not exhibit

it; other counsel in the case may; but there was hair there and

there was a man came here, who has got bald on the hair question,

and says he can not tell human hair from dog's hair. Why a man

should waste the better part of his life looking at hair and then

can not tell one kind of hair from another is more than I can

understand. Why he should go over the country lecturing about hair

and giving instructions about hair, and then, coming here to give

testimony, to say that he doesn't know anything about hair, is more

than I can comprehend."

This sally of the State's Attorney seemed to amuse some of the

audience, and the Judge again threatened to clear the court-room if

any more levity was indulged in.

Judge Longenecker proceeded to ridicule the testimony of the expert

on the question of hair and blood corpuscles. "You, gentlemen, are

the judges of the evidence as to whether that was human hair and

human blood, and you are to take and determine whether that body

that was in the trunk, whether the blood and the hair that were in

that trunk were human hair and human blood. These men called to the

stand as experts give their opinions as experts. The evidence shows

that it was blood; we prove that by chemistry; we called to the

stand Professor Haynes, and he says that it was human blood. Now,

Gentlemen, do you believe there was a dog killed in that cottage?

Do you believe there was an ox killed in that cottage? Do you

believe there was a guinea pig killed in that cottage? Do you

believe it was a guinea pig's blood that was on that cake of soap

or in the trunk or in the cottage? If you do, very well, but the

evidence all tends to show that it was human blood, and not only

that it was human blood, but that it was the blood of Dr. Cronin

that was found in the cottage and in the trunk. The evidence tends

to show and must convince you that it was the hair and the blood of

Dr. Cronin that was in the cottage and in the trunk.

"Why do I say this? Because the evidence in this case must convince

you that there was a conspiracy to take his life; that he was

driven to this cottage; that he was seen alive entering this

cottage; that he was last seen there; and within a half mile the

trunk with that hair and that blood. That it was the hair and the

blood of Dr. Cronin, I think can not be disputed.

"But, gentlemen, why was this floor painted, if there was an ox

killed there, or if a dog were killed in there, or if a guinea pig

were killed there? If these blood corpuscles which they talk about

in this case were the corpuscles of an ox, or any other animal, why

did this man who rented the cottage desire to paint the floor to

conceal the blood of a dog--to cover it up? I shall not take up

your time to argue that proposition--that it was anything else than

the blood of Dr. Cronin."

THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNER CIRCLE.

"Well, we find Martin Burke when the body is discovered. He takes a

leave of absence. Now, remember what Martin Burke did in this

matter, and what Kunze did in this matter, and what Coughlin did

and what Beggs did. First, we find Beggs, a week after the murder,

telling O'Burne and Maurice Morris that 'Cronin was all right. He

will turn up all right; we are in the inner circle.' Now, the

learned gentlemen brought men here to show that there are no inner

circles. Men who belong to inner circles do not advertise that fact

to the world. We speak of inner circles; there are inner circles in

politics, in churches and in different classes of business. When

there are men to do and perform certain things they are called an

inner circle, I have no doubt now. Beggs had only reference to the

fact that he was on the inside and understood what he was talking

about; that he knew that Dr. Cronin's death would never be

discovered, and he felt secure in saying 'He is all right; we are

in the inner circle.' That is about the amount of it. I believe he

met him on the street in front of the Chicago Opera House, and you

remember that this was just after the disappearance of Cronin and

before the discovery of the body. Kunze was seen in the saloon by

Cameron about the 10th or 12th of April with Dan Coughlin. Now, if

it was that he was with Dan Coughlin for the purpose they claim,

and that he wanted to get something from Kunze, then it certainly

was not the 1st of April. They proved that Coughlin was after

certain papers, and that Kunze slapped him on the shoulder and said

he was his friend and would do anything for him. He was seen by

Washburne on the 15th or 20th of April, riding in a buggy. Kunze

knew Coughlin and Coughlin knew Kunze. It was necessary to paint

the floor on the 12th of May, before the cottage was discovered. On

Saturday night, not when Kunze was at work--not when it was

necessary for Kunze to be at work for his employer--the two men

went into the real estate office; the thunders were roaring and the

lightning was flashing; an officer sees these men; he says to them,

'You are late out.' A light was seen in the cottage, and when the

officer came back the light was out. I have no doubt now but that

Kunze was the man who put the artist's touch upon the blood of Dr.

Cronin, and the officer discovering these men there, with the

lightning flashing and the thunders roaring. I have no doubt that

Kunze bungled the job on the 12th of May, and after they had

discovered that they could not rent that cottage any longer--after

the old woman had said she would not take pay for the cottage any

longer. Kunze goes to the South Side and gives the name of Kizer;

boards under that name, and works under another name. Now, take the

evidence: seen in the flat washing his feet; seen on the 4th; seen

on the 10th and 12th with Dan Coughlin drinking in a saloon, and

seen with O'Sullivan in the middle of April riding, and seen by

Mertes going to the cottage on the 4th of May, and saying to a man

under the assumed named of Petrowsky that he had an occupied house

in Lake View; and he might go there and have lots of fun, and

following that, that his friend excused himself and did not go.

That is Kunze. P. O'Sullivan talks to Mr. Carlson, and says to him:

'Is the cottage rented?' Then he talks about deputies and taking

them into the brotherhood, and his card is presented while he is

out of town. Then Coughlin, with his threats, with his desire to

have Cronin slugged; Coughlin's motion for the secret committee;

Coughlin whispering that Cronin is a spy; Coughlin's charge to

Dinan, 'Don't say anything about it, for Cronin and I are enemies;'

Coughlin telling the chief of police, when asked about the man for

whom he hired the horse and buggy, that it was Smith--all this is

sufficient. The chief asked: 'Where did you know Smith?' and

Coughlin answered 'John Ryan, of Hancock, sent him to me.' When in

Winnipeg Burke was asked to whom he wrote, and he said: 'John Ryan,

of Hancock, Mich.--my friend.' Coughlin said to the chief: 'John

Ryan, of Hancock, Mich., sent him to me.'"

THE GREAT CONSPIRACY.

"See the connection; see the arrangements! Take Coughlin's

statement that the white horse and buggy was hired for a man named

Smith. He was so anxious, so careful to tell Dinan not to say

anything about it, because it might get him into trouble; yet he

pretended to tell Captain Schaack, as proved by Whalen, that he saw

Smith and didn't bring him in when he had instructions to find him.

He told Dinan that he had worn out the leather of his shoes hunting

for Smith, and yet when he sees this man, who is drawing all the

trouble upon him, he didn't even bring him to the station. Away

with the Smith story!

"Martin Burke, as soon as the body is discovered, is found in

Winnipeg. We find him there under an assumed name, on his way to

Europe. He is brought back under the laws of extradition on this

charge of murder. For days and weeks before he could be removed he

put the courts to the trouble of investigating as to whether he

should return or not. Martin Burke flies away from Camp 20. Martin

Burke leaves his friend Coughlin, his friend O'Sullivan. He goes

away from his camp off to Winnipeg. He said he had been in Hancock,

Mich., working for Ryan. If Burke rented the Carlson cottage for a

lawful purpose, why should he go to Winnipeg and thence to the old

country? Why should he flee the State of Illinois? It is because

Martin Burke moved the furniture into the Carlson cottage for an

unlawful purpose; it is because Martin Burke was in the cottage and

dealt the blows that put out the life of Dr. Cronin; it is because

his hands were red with the blood of a human being.

"Colleran testified that Martin Burke and Coughlin were together

outside of the lodge. Colleran tells you that he met him on the

Sunday night after the discovery of the body, and that he said he

had been working in the stock-yards, when in fact he had been in

Joliet."

"That was before the discovery of the body," interrupted Mr.

Forrest.

"You are right," said the State's Attorney; "it was just before the

discovery of the body. Well, Burke disappears. There may be

something that I have omitted in this matter. As I said, the

clothing was found in the sewer--Dr. Cronin's coat, his vest, his

pants. Dr. Cronin's box of splints; Dr. Cronin's satchel and

instruments, his cards--all were found in this sewer on the line

that that wagon was driven on that fatal night. That is beyond

question.

"Now, gentlemen, I have gone over the evidence as rapidly as I

could, and yet at the same time kept it in connection as I

understand it. There may be a great many things, and there are,

that I have omitted; but my intention has been to keep your minds

directed to the chain of circumstances. And if you want to get at

this case, if you want to boil it down, if you want to write the

history of the case, you are to write:

"'I contracted for medical services'--Patrick O'Sullivan. 'I

contracted for the cottage.'--Martin Burke. 'I contracted for the

horse and buggy for my friend.'--Daniel Coughlin. Then draw your

line and write 'Committee of Three.' Write again: 'I contracted for

your life.'--Patrick O'Sullivan. 'I contracted for the horse and

buggy to drive you to death?'--Dan Coughlin. 'I rented the cottage

in which to strike out your life.'--Martin Burke. Write again: 'The

committee reports to this senior guardian alone.'"

JUDGE LONGENECKER CLOSES.

"Gentlemen, I have finished. I hope you will pardon me for having

detained you so long. I know how anxious you are, while you may be

ever so willing to sit here for weeks and months if necessary, yet

you can not help but be anxious to be with your families. Yet, as a

duty you owe to the public, as a duty you owe the defendants, as a

duty to society, you must be patient until you hear what the others

have to say in this important case. For three long months my

associates have held up my hands; they have been with me night and

day. They have encouraged me. It was necessary to have assistance

in this case; able counsel as they are, it requires it. No one

knows unless he has had the experience what it is to be left with a

case of this character on his hands. No one knows unless he has had

the experience, what is it to get at the bottom of a conspiracy of

this character. Therefore, I have felt the necessity of these men

who have sat by me for the last three months, and I want you, no

matter what may be said, to feel that the people of the State of

Illinois have as much right to demand the best talent the city

affords, as due to men that come up out of the sewers. While these

men are able, men of ability, men of standing, men of reputation,

understand that this was a terrible crime; understand that this was

a terrible conspiracy; understand that the very men, the officers

of the law, who ought to have held up my hands, were divided

against me; understand that in this case men drawing their salaries

from the police department of our city stood in league with the men

who struck out the life of Dr. Cronin. And while I compliment, not

as a compliment, but as well deserved on their part, these

associates of mine for their ability, don't understand that I

under-estimate Judge Wing and Mr. Forrest and Mr. Donahoe and Mr.

Foster. On the other side sit as good talent as was ever brought

into a court-room. I say it without flattery, that if these men

hang for the murder, they could have asked for no better men to

have defended them than the gentlemen on my left. Coming out of the

sewer, coming out of the chilly ice wagon, coming from the

pay-rolls of the city, coming from the bar room, coming from the

paint brush--these men have held his Honor and yourselves for over

three long months; and if your verdict shall be that they hang on

the scaffold they can not claim that they have had no time to call

upon the holy Trinity.

"Gentlemen, when you come to consider your verdict, when you come

to make up your minds, when, as I believe you will do, you

undertake to render a truthful verdict on the law and the evidence,

I want you to remember the facts in the case. I want you to look at

this mountain of evidence that we have been building up and up

before you until it has risen high, until it stands out with its

mountain peaks illuminated by the sunshine of truth, until all who

are not blind may see that these men are the murderers of Dr.

Cronin. These mountain peaks stand prominently forth. This

contract of O'Sullivan's, this hiring of the buggy, this renting of

the cottage, this running to Canada; all these point to the fact

that these men are the guilty ones. It stands up like a mountain

built of truth, as solid as the granite hills against which the

Coughlin, the Burke, the O'Sullivan, the Beggs, the Kunze alibis

can not prevail.

"I leave the matter now in your hands. I have had this case on my

hands for months and months. I feel now that the responsibility

rests with you. I put it in your hands, believing confidently and

expecting that you will do what your best judgment dictates. When

you come to consider your verdict, think of the 4th day of May;

think of that man gathering his little valise and instruments;

think of him bringing to his bosom the cotton to relieve suffering;

think of the splints in the box; think of his rushing out to the

buggy; think of his crowded seat; think of him moving north to

relieve suffering humanity. See him enter as a gentleman into the

cottage; hear his cries of God and Jesus when, without giving him

time to utter the other Trinity name, he was felled to the floor.

Think of his wounds in his head; think of the grave in which he was

placed; think of all these in making up your penalty, and may it be

such a verdict as when His Honor pronounces judgment on it, that

he, having an eye to God, may say: 'May the Lord have mercy on your

souls.'"

Judge Longenecker received the congratulations of his colleagues

for the able manner in which he had presented his case, and the

Court inquired if Judge Wing wished to proceed at once. Judge Wing

said he was ready to proceed if the Court desired he should go on.

* * * * *

AN APPEAL FOR COUGHLIN.

Judge Wing's address to the jury on behalf of Daniel Coughlin was

an able effort, lasting over two days. He took the ground that

there was absolutely no evidence whatever against his client, and

quoted numerous cases in the criminal records of New York, Chicago

and other cities to demonstrate the fact that circumstantial

evidence was totally unreliable, and that it would be monstrous if

a man's guilt or innocence were to be based upon a previous

conviction. He urged that prejudice should not effect the verdict,

and that the jury should not be biased against his client simply

because he was a member of the Clan-na-Gael. The whole case, he

said, was circumstantial, was interwoven with doubts,

contradictions and possibilities, so as to be practically of no

strength whatever when taken in a mass. Counsel reviewed the

testimony of other witnesses for the State as it affected Coughlin,

casting doubt on the evidence of Mertes, the milkman, scoring Major

Sampson, and insisting there was no absolute proof that it was

Dinan's white horse that drove the Physician to his death. Speaking

of Sampson, he asked the members of the jury if they were going to

act upon the word of a thief. Could they look the prisoner's wife

in the face and say to her, "I sent your husband to prison upon the

words of Major Sampson?" Could they go to his children and say to

them, "I have made you, by my verdict the children of a felon. I

have put eternal griefs upon you upon the words of a man who goes

about the country with public speakers, seeking sporting

privileges, and working 'Grangers' with the 'shell game?'" As to

the knife episode, he said, that never since crime was committed by

man had anyone heard of a guilty man keeping souvenirs of his

crime, or preserving such evidences of his guilt. Never in the

history of the world had such a thing occurred. The speaker went

into the Camp 20 phase of the evidence, insisting there was an

absolute lack of proof that any conspiracy had existed. He touched

upon the telephone messages that passed between Coughlin and

O'Sullivan, saying it was impossible that murderers or men plotting

murder would trust a message to a fellow-conspirator through a

telephone.

[Illustration: R. M. WING, ONE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE.]

He elaborated on the necessity of absolute proof of the cause of

death, arguing that no one but a physician could definitely

determine the cause of death, and unless it was shown beyond a

doubt that the death of Dr. Cronin was caused as shown in the

indictment, it was the duty of the jury to find the prisoners

innocent. One of the most vital points in the case, the cause of

the death of Dr. Cronin, remained unproved, and until this was

settled, and settled beyond a doubt, the charge could not hold good

and the defendants could not be convicted. Judge Wing dissected the

evidence of the medical experts at length, ridiculing them

mercilessly, casting doubt upon the theory of the State, that the

blood found in the Carlson cottage was that of a human being. He

concluded his address in these words:

"Gentlemen, I have tried to discuss this case fairly and

conscientiously. We are about to part, and I beg you, in

conclusion, not to go off upon any prejudice, or upon any passion

or upon any suspicion. I beg of you to give these men a fair show.

I believe you will do that. I beg of you to remember that a certain

conclusion can only be reached after you have traveled on sure and

certain ground. Do what you think is right under the law,

gentlemen, and I do not doubt you will."

* * * * *

COUNSELOR INGHAM'S SPEECH.

Mr. Geo. W. Ingham, in behalf of the State, followed Mr. Donahoe

with a forcible review of the evidence, and which was listened to

with intense interest by every one within reach of his voice. He

prefaced his remarks by saying that the sanctity of human life in

America was in the keeping of the juries of America. The law

provided that a man guilty of murder should be punished, but it

provided no method for its own enforcement, save that which was

invested in twelve men. To that number of men it was entrusted. The

jury came from the body of the county, and so it was that peace and

good order of every community was in the keeping of its own

citizens. In every criminal case the jury held in one hand the

rights of the prisoners, and, to a certain extent, it held in the

other hand the good name and the peace of the community in which it

lived. This was a responsibility already great, but which increased

in direct proportion to the enormity of the offense under

consideration. Yet no responsibility could be greater than that of

the twelve men before him. Only a few months before, Patrick Henry

Cronin, a citizen of the State of Illinois, a resident of the great

metropolis, living in fancied security and within the very shadow

of the court-house in which they were now sitting, was lured from

his home upon a mission of murder. Fired by professional zeal,

moved by the instincts of humanity which his choice of a profession

indicated, he rushed to the assistance of a suffering man.

Suspecting nothing, he went out, armed, as it were, with the very

instruments of his skill and profession, and then rushed into the

slaughter-house prepared for his reception and death.

Then, as if the white face of death itself was not sufficient to

satiate human hatred, his body was subjected to the indignity and

ignominy of burial in a filthy sewer. This man, to whom sacred

burial in consecrated ground was a right to which he always looked

forward, was thrown into a sewer. The crime was singular in its

brutality, but its brutality was not its startling feature. Why was

Dr. Cronin slain? Because he was condemned to die. Condemned for

what? For no offense within the laws of the State of Illinois.

Condemned and executed by whom? By a tribunal that was unlawfully

constituted, a tribunal that was at the same time, accuser,

witness, judge and executioner. It was a tribunal which within

itself in the light of day, which existed upon a territory of the

State to whom its members hold allegiance, a tribunal which was

treasonable to the laws of the State, the juries were called upon

to execute and to the laws of the State whose protection it had a

right to claim. Who could have dreamed that such a thing was

possible in the State of Illinois? Who could say that six months

from that day he could not be repeated in the State of Illinois.

Only the twelve men who were trying the case. That was their

responsibility, for their oath in the case was to well and truly

try and true deliverance make between the people of the State of

Illinois and the defendants, to well and truly try them upon the

law and upon the evidence.

[Illustration: GEORGE C. INGHAM, ONE OF COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION.]

From this introduction, Mr. Ingham branched off into an elaborate

dissertation of the law regarding murder and the power of

circumstantial evidence. Numerous authorities on circumstantial

evidence were cited from. Counsel dwelt upon Coughlin's hatred of

Cronin, upon the purchase of the furniture and upon the peculiar

actions of the defense. Stress was laid upon the fact, that no

evidence had been produced with a view of showing that it was not

Martin Burke that rented the Carlson cottage, and that he engaged

the expressman to move the furniture from the Clark street flat to

Lake View. The general outline of the plot as disclosed by the

evidence was considered, and the conclusion drawn, that the right

men were on trial. Continuing, Mr. Ingham said:

"Now, I want to call your attention to one fact, that not one

attempt has been made at defense. The counsel for the defense have

done the best they could. I know the counsel for the defense well.

I know Forrest, and have known him for years, and have tried cases

with and against him. I know he would go far and near and would

remove heaven and earth, were it possible, to save his clients. I

know that he believes thoroughly and heartily in the maxim of old

Lord Brougham, that a lawyer should know but one man in the world,

and that man his client. I have known Daniel Donahoe for years, and

I know his ability. I have not known Judge Wing for so long a time,

but from what I have seen of him and know of him I know him to be a

skillful lawyer. His address to you, gentlemen of the jury, proves

his ability, and I say to you unhesitatingly, that these men, after

doing everything in their power to aid their clients, have utterly

and signally failed. I ask you to remember that not one particle of

evidence has been introduced by the defense either to dispose or

disprove the evidence I have stated to you. Not one particle of

evidence has been admitted to be proved and to be denied here,

except the single statement that Burke was at the cottage on the

night of the murder. There is evidence, however, which more than

outweighs all the alibis they can bring here.

"The saloon-keeper came upon the stand here and plainly and clearly

told you that on the night of the 4th of May, about half-past 10

o'clock, three men entered his saloon. He tells you he is positive

one of them was Patrick O'Sullivan. He knows him, buys ice of him,

and has no earthly reason to give evidence to injure him unless it

was true. He says also that the other was a taller man, and in his

opinion he believes that man was Coughlin; further, there was a

little man who spoke with a German accent, and that man he says he

is sure was Kunze. Now, you will remember he had only bought that

saloon a few days before, and he can hardly be mistaken in the

night, because he tells you he knows it was on the Saturday night,

because on the night following, the Sunday night, he had an

opening, and, like other Germans, he never had less than fifteen to

twenty-five men at his bar. What object could he have in testifying

against Patrick O'Sullivan, Coughlin and Kunze, and saying they

were the men who drank wine and took cigars at his bar? Is he

corroborated? Let us see. The saloon-keeper is admittedly as honest

a man as there is in Chicago. No attempt has been made to impeach

his evidence, and I ask you to consider whether or not he is

corroborated. Let me draw your attention to the evidence given by

the German gardener named Wardell. They left the saloon about 11

o'clock or a quarter after, the saloon-keeper says, and you will

remember that Wardell says he left a saloon near by about twenty

minutes after, and just at that time he happened to raise his eyes

and saw in front of him two men, whom he describes, and believes to

be O'Sullivan and Coughlin, and he saw them walk down to and enter

the Carlson cottage. Where was the third man? Do you remember that

about a half hour after that time, about half a mile south of the

Carlson cottage, a wagon was seen with a trunk in it? The two men

who went into the Carlson cottage went in there to help carry out

the trunk containing Cronin's body and the clothes, while the

third man went down and got the wagon that was to take the body and

the clothes away.

"Now, how is that met? We are told that the saloon-keeper is

mistaken, that this man never saw O'Sullivan and Coughlin and

Kunze, but that on the Sunday night Patrick O'Sullivan went there

to that very saloon with the two Hylands, and that they had two

glasses of wine and a cigar each. Gentlemen, you will remember that

the saloon-keeper, who is a German, distinctly said that the

smaller man asked for beer and spoke with a German accent. The

younger Hyland never spoke with a German accent in his life. Which

do you propose to believe--Neiman, the saloon-keeper, who has no

earthly interest whatever in giving false testimony against

O'Sullivan or the friends of Patrick O'Sullivan? These two

strangers who go to see him for the first time are compelled to

stay and take dinner, and are then taken out to the saloon and each

given two glasses of wine and a cigar at the expense of O'Sullivan.

Remember, gentlemen, he had never seen these two Hylands before

that Sunday afternoon. The truth is, that when they say those three

men were in that saloon, the two Hylands and O'Sullivan, they admit

unconsciously the fact that three men were there, as the

saloon-keeper testified; they admit that O'Sullivan was there and

the thing is narrowed down to a simple question of veracity between

the saloon-keeper on the one hand and the Hylands on the other.

There is much more reason, vastly more reason, I submit, why the

evidence of the saloon-keeper, who knew O'Sullivan perfectly,

should be believed in preference to that of the two Hylands, who

are ready to swear anything to help their friend out of a scrape.

Now, what else is disputed?

"An attempt is also made to dispute that portion of the evidence

tending to show that O'Sullivan was at the Carlson cottage. How is

it done? Again they resort to an alibi. As I said to you in the

opening of this case, and I will now repeat, that if O'Sullivan was

at home and in bed at the time the murder was committed, and you

are satisfied from the evidence that he was engaged in that

conspiracy, he is just as guilty as if he struck the fatal blow

himself. Against the testimony of Neiman, who saw him there with

Coughlin and Kunze in that saloon, and of Wardell, who saw him and

Coughlin enter the Carlson cottage after they left the saloon, they

produce the evidence of Mulcahey, a man who became connected with

O'Sullivan under the most suspicious circumstances. That man

testified that he came to Chicago a perfect stranger; that he went

to O'Sullivan--went to his house on the 31st of April--was

instantly taken in and kept and boarded there, slept in the same

bed with O'Sullivan, rolled around the street in the ice wagon and

slept with him on the night of the murder. He swears also that he

was with O'Sullivan when old Carlson claimed to have heard the

conversation between O'Sullivan and Burke; he swears also that he

heard Coughlin and O'Sullivan arrange that O'Sullivan was to keep

his eye upon Kunze and report if he saw him in Lake View. In short,

gentlemen, he was a very convenient sort of witness. What was he

doing there all the month? He was not working for O'Sullivan, yet

he slept in the same bed with him--a perfect stranger, and, strange

as it may appear, he only went into the employ of O'Sullivan a few

days before the murder. I undertake to say, gentlemen, that his

testimony is false, that O'Sullivan was not in bed, that on the

contrary he and Burke and Coughlin were engaged in the murder at

the Carlson cottage. Who is there that corroborates his testimony?

The two women, a cousin of O'Sullivan's by marriage and his sister.

Tom Whelan was too sound a sleeper to know whether O'Sullivan was

in bed or was up or out, and they ask you to believe that sort of

an alibi against the evidence you have on the part of the

prosecution."

KUNZE'S PART IN THE MURDER.

"What is the evidence against Kunze? He was the friend, the tool of

Coughlin. It is in evidence that he had been engaged with Dan

Coughlin in working up the distillery case. How much of a detective

he is I do not know, but I don't suppose he is a very great one. If

I were to guess at it I should say he was a detective's stool

pigeon.

"He had been engaged with Coughlin for months. Mertes swears that

he saw him drive their horse with a white face up to the cottage

the night of the murder, and you will remember that he picked him

out from a number of men. Mertes is a countryman of Kunze's, and

he would not be likely to testify against his own countryman unless

truth compelled him to do so. He tells you that Kunze drove a horse

and buggy up to that Carlson cottage at 8:30 o'clock on the night

of the murder, and, more than that, it is in evidence that Kunze

was perfectly at home in the rooms at 117 Clark street, and was

seen by a very intelligent witness sitting in front of the window

washing his feet. Now, what was he doing at 117 South Clark street,

if he was not engaged in that conspiracy? The men who engaged that

flat at 117 Clark street, those conspirators, were not going to

trust their lives to men they did not know; and the truth is that

he was the tool of Coughlin. More than that, it is in evidence that

he said he expected to be arrested on the Cronin business. Why?

Why? I repeat."

"Because I was told so," suddenly cried Kunze, springing to his

feet.

"This man is defended by able lawyers," retorted Mr. Ingham, "and

on their heads is the responsibility of his defense."

"God knows I am innocent of the murder of Dr. Cronin," cried Kunze,

again springing to his feet, and there was a scene of excitement

for a few minutes. Finally his counsel forced him to his seat, and

induced him to remain quiet.

"Why did he say he expected to be arrested on the Cronin business?

I repeat," continued Mr. Ingham. "It was because he felt he was

connected with that business. Coughlin knew him, Coughlin had

worked with him, and Coughlin knew that in this case their lives

were safe in his hands. It is in evidence that shortly after the

murder he was with Patrick O'Sullivan drinking, and you will

remember a conversation which was detailed by a saloon-keeper, and

which occurred shortly before the murder, wherein Patrick

O'Sullivan made a bargain to sell to Kunze the bay horse with a

white face. Why was that horse sold to Kunze, this little painter

who was working around the country, this man who was in the employ

of the detective and trusted by Coughlin? Will you, gentlemen of

the jury, tell me why O'Sullivan, who lived at the rear of the

Carlson cottage, and whose stable almost abutted on the cottage,

was selling this poor painter a horse?"

WHOM THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

"I have gone over the salient features of the evidence, and I say

unhesitatingly that there is evidence which points directly to

Coughlin; it points directly to Patrick O'Sullivan, and it points

directly to Burke, unerringly to those three as having a direct

connection with the murder of Dr. Cronin. Are those isolated men,

scattered over the city, having no bond of harmony? On the

contrary, the evidence is that four of those men on trial were

bound together by a bond. Judge Wing said the murder in this case

was different from an ordinary case. He said truly. The motive was

not robbery; it was not personal hate, but it was hatred, political

hatred in its nature, growing out of a political conspiracy. That

conspiracy originated in Camp 20, and it is in evidence that Beggs,

Coughlin, O'Sullivan and Burke are members of that camp. There you

have the start of it. In the course of circumstances, Sullivan made

the contract which was to lure the doctor to destruction; Coughlin

told the chief of police and told Thomas O'Connor that his enmity

toward Cronin grew out of secret society matter and was of long

standing. Simonds buys the furniture, Burke hires the house--the

Carlson Cottage--and the full arrangements are made for the

butchery of their victim. It is also in evidence that Coughlin

wanted Sampson to slug the Doctor, and up to that time he had not

got to the pitch when he wanted him killed, but you will see how it

grew. The evidence shows he denounced him as a spy, and on the

Monday morning after the murder, when he admitted his enmity to the

Doctor, the Doctor's body was lying in the catch-basin.

"How about Patrick O'Sullivan? We find after the murder he goes to

see Mrs. O'Farrer, and she says to him it is an awful murder. He

replied 'Yes.' She then asked why did they kill him. Now, mark his

reply. He says: 'They say he was a spy and gave away the secrets of

the order to which he belonged, and if he did he should be killed.'

Here you have the conspirators of Camp 20 at work.

"Where did the trouble begin? Recollect that O'Sullivan says to

Mrs. O'Farrer when he was at her house that, 'They say Cronin gave

away the secrets of the order to which he belonged.' It is in

evidence in this case that the only secrets that Cronin ever gave

away were about embezzlement of the money and the sending of their

brethren to English prisons. You know also that it is in evidence

in this case that the very first hostility toward Cronin was made

apparent in Camp 20 of the Clan-na-Gael organization. There was

constant turmoil and trouble in the Clan-na-Gael organization

because of the embezzlements and the wrong doing of the triangle.

It is in evidence also that Dr. Cronin charged at the trial of that

triangle that they had embezzled over $100,000 of the funds of the

organization besides sending patriotic Irishmen into British

prisons. Whether that be true or false we have not been permitted

to show. So far as this case is concerned it is immaterial whether

true or false. You are an American jury; this is an American court;

these defendants are here under indictment, and you are called upon

to administer American law; and whether Dr. Cronin may have been a

spy or an honest man and a patriot cuts no figure whatever in this

case. One thing, however, I can say. When that sewer gave up its

dead, it opened up the sunlight of heaven on these charges. 'Cronin

was killed,' says O'Sullivan: 'he was killed because he gave away

the secrets of his order,' and I repeat the only secrets he could

have given away were the embezzlement of the funds and the

imprisonment of their brothers. His mouth was closed and his

charges were forever stopped by his death. That swollen and

distorted body, those mute lips, prove the truth of his charges

more clearly than any court or jury could possibly do, and if these

charges were not true there would have been no motive for them to

put him out of the way. Thomas O'Connor tells you he was present at

a meeting of Camp 20 when a man, Foy, arose, and said they had

better look out for spies, and there were other Le Carons among

them. He says that he made a speech to that effect, I may not give

you the exact details, and O'Connor said in reply that they had

better look out for the men who were embezzling the funds of the

organization and sending their brothers to English prisons. A storm

arose. The records of that meeting show three things: They show,

first, a resolution to the effect that hereafter no member should

be initiated whose name had not been submitted to all the camps.

They show, secondly, that a demand was proposed to be made on the

executive for information in regard to the Buffalo trial, that is

the trial of the triangle; and thirdly, that that was amended or

changed so as to read that information should be asked from the

district member.

"That record also shows the appointment, or passage of a resolution

for the appointment of a secret committee of three by the senior

guardian to investigate rumors afloat regarding the trial

committee. What were they? O'Connor has told you that the charges

were what he made, and he and others say that the camp where these

charges were made was known as Dr. Cronin's camp. Denis O'Connor

and others say they knew to whom Thomas O'Connor referred. To

investigate the matter of these rumors then meant to investigate

the men who put these rumors afloat. That man was killed, foully

slain, and his body thrown into the sewer. Now Beggs wrote to the

district member. Beggs asked the district member to investigate

certain charges. The first resolution of the meeting required him

to do that. The district member said he knew of no portion of the

constitution which was violated by an act of that kind, and he knew

of no section of the constitution which would enable him to inflict

a penalty. That letter of Beggs' when you study it, means this: 'I

do not want to do this, I would rather have nothing to do with it,

but I have been compelled to notice it, and these old quarrels must

stop.' And you will notice it is full of forebodings of dangers to

come.

"Again, subsequently, you will remember that Beggs replied at a

subsequent meeting that the committee--the secret committee which

he had appointed--must report to him alone. Then the practical part

of the business began with the appointment of that committee. It

was Beggs' duty to appoint that committee. Beggs did appoint that

committee. Beggs was an enemy of Cronin, as were the others. Beggs

denounced him as did the others. Beggs said after his death, 'O, he

will turn up; he is all right.' The others said the same thing.

They covered his body with the filth of the sewer and his memory

with the epithet of traitor. I said in an American court, before an

American jury, it made no difference whether the charges which

Coughlin made were true or false, it made no difference whether he

was a traitor or a patriot, but the truth of history demands that

the name of Cronin shall be vindicated, and it is vindicated more

strongly than it could be by mortal lips when you remember that

that vindication comes from the slime of the sewer on his body and

the production of his clothes, also from another sewer. They

murdered him because they feared his charges; they called him a spy

in order to nerve their dupes to kill him, and they slew him.

Gentlemen of the jury, I have now said all in this case that I

intend to say. It is needless for me to say more, as I shall be

followed by others of great ability. I simply ask you to do this.

Your duty is unpleasant, and the duties you have already undergone

have been onerous and burdensome.

"It is unpleasant for a man to sit on the trial of a fellow-man on

a charge involving his life and liberty, but it is your business to

do that in this case. As long as human nature is constituted in

such a way as it is, law will be necessary to make some men walk

straight. Crimes, murders, thefts and arsons can only be prevented

by the enforcement of the law. The law, as I said, can only be

enforced by the jury. On the call of Providence you are here now,

and your duty is before you. Recollect, gentlemen, that while your

duty is serious and burdensome, it is also of vast importance.

Remember, gentlemen, that your duty is just as important and as

necessary, and the necessity for courage and determination to carry

out that duty is as great as it would be upon the battlefield or in

any other walk of life. Deal with these men justly, execute the

law, satisfy your own consciences, and the rest of us will be

satisfied."

* * * * *

COUNSELOR DONAHOE TALKS.

Mr. Ingham was followed by Mr. Donahoe, who spoke in behalf of

O'Sullivan and Kunze. He prefaced his argument with the remark that

there was no duty in the life of a lawyer that afforded him more

pleasure than to defend the innocent; and that, therefore, he began

to plead for the lives of his two clients with a heart as light as

that of a newly-made bride, caressed with her husband's love. It

was the apparent desire of the public prosecutor to disgrace every

witness, who appeared to testify to any fact or circumstance,

tending to show the innocence of the accused, but this course would

never deter him from exercising the best ability that God had given

him, in procuring for his clients every legal right known to the

law and the country. He urged the jury to banish all prejudice, and

to adopt reasonable judgment in considering the legal evidence of

the case and the laws of the country, and urged that if they did

so, his two clients would soon be breathing the free air of heaven.

The counsel drew attention to the fact, that he had been especially

assigned to the defense of Kunze by the Court, the prisoner having

sworn that he did not have a dollar, and also said that until the

opening of the present case he had had no connection with

O'Sullivan or any of his friends. There was nothing to prove, the

counsel went on to argue, that Kunze was in any way connected with

the crime. The young man who claimed to have seen him wash his feet

at the window of the Clark street flat, as well as the

saloon-keeper, whose place he was alleged to have visited on the

night of May the 4th, might easily have been mistaken. It was, in

brief, a case of mistaken identity. Mr. Donahoe argued at length,

with a view of showing that the testimony regarding the

identification was at all times questionable, and should be

received with a great degree of caution, and quoted numerous

authorities to illustrate the fact that his theory was correct.

Proof of criminal intent, he said, was absolutely necessary, and

that that was proof absolutely lacking. Mr. Donahoe concluded his

speech in these words:

"Gentlemen, I am about to say the last words for my clients. Their

welfare is in your hands. I am satisfied that if you banish from

your mind everything but the law and the evidence, in this case,

you will unlock the prison door and let them go about their

business, earning their bread by the sweat of their brows.

Something was said in this case, some discussion in your presence

about Alexander Sullivan. There is no proof that my clients know

Alexander Sullivan. If there should exist in your minds, or if

there has been injected into your minds, prejudice against that

man, for God's sake don't use that against my clients, two young

men whom the evidence in this case proves to be innocent. Yet the

law does not say that they require to show their innocence; the law

requires that the prosecution shall show their guilt. I have at

heart the welfare of Kunze, although he never gave me a dollar, as

much as I have the welfare of my client, O'Sullivan, who has

retained me in this case. Banish all prejudice and suspicion from

your minds; apply your reason and judgment and consciences to the

law and the evidence in this case, and I am sure, then, that these

young men will be acquitted, as they ought to be. Remember that in

your hands rests the lives of these men. Remember that one day you

will be called upon to give an account for every act and deed done

in this life. Let nothing that you shall do in this case against my

clients be such as shall be charged against you when you appear

before that tribunal of the Most High, and when you are asked 'How

have you dealt with your fellow-men?' don't have to say that when

dealing with your fellows you had bloody hearts. Merciful! The more

merciful a man is, the more godlike he is! But, gentlemen of the

jury, do not misunderstand me. Do not think that I am asking for

mercy for my clients. Oh, no; not at all; not at all. I ask that

you carefully weigh this evidence, consider the law, be governed by

the legal evidence and the law, and that is all that I ask you to

do. I believe that if you banish everything from your minds but the

law and the evidence in this case, that the God that gave you a

head to think and a heart to feel for your fellow-men, the God that

gave you an existence, will never permit you to strangle my

clients. Oh, no, unless you are ready to guess them into eternity,

you can't convict them on this proof. I tried this case fairly. I

have treated every witness fairly, I have been respectful to the

Court, and I have been respectful to you. These two young men's

welfare, their lives, are confided to your hands. For God's sake,

for their sake, for your sake, make no mistake. Gentlemen, I thank

you."

* * * * *

HYNES' GREAT EFFORT.

The announcement that Mr. W. J. Hynes would commence his argument

at the opening of court, upon the day following the conclusion of

Mr. Donahoe's address, had the effect of attracting an immense

throng to the Temple of Justice. Hundreds were admitted, while

thousands were unable to gain entrance to the court-room. Judge

McConnell took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock, and Mr. Hynes

immediately commenced his address. He said that in what he had to

say he would endeavor to be fair. He knew the importance of the

great proceeding of the character under consideration. He knew

that, no matter how guilty men might be, under the civilization of

a century, punishment was to be visited only under due process of

law. For three months or more the public time had been occupied in

hearing the accusations, trying the accused, considering the

evidence, listening to the arguments, through that protection of

the law for which lives have been sacrificed and rivers of blood

have been spilled, to secure to those charged with crime the

protection of the law. That protection of the law had been thrown

around the men on trial to see that they should have a fair

hearing, and that the jury should render a fair verdict. All

evidence that was not competent had been excluded, and, wherever a

question of doubt had arisen, His Honor, the judge, exercising his

natural instincts of mercy, had solved that doubt for the benefit

of the accused. Hearsay evidence had been excluded; the defendants

had been confronted by the witnesses who testified against them,

and all these forms of law, of civilization and justice had been

extended in the trial of men accused of charging a man behind his

back, of killing him behind his back, of killing him first and

accusing him afterward. Even such men as these, however, were

entitled to all the protection of courts of law, and to all the

safeguards which the law threw around them, because no human life

could be taken, no human liberty or freedom could be abridged by

a day or an hour, until the court of justice, the accusation

against the accused had been judicially ascertained and determined

by twelve fair-minded men beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Illustration: W. J. HYNES. ONE OF COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION.]

With this introduction, the learned counsel proceeded to review the

case from the day of the disappearance of Dr. Cronin. He declared

that the dispatches received at Chicago, from Canada, shortly after

the disappearance of the physician, and to the effect that he was

alive and in the flesh in the dominion, demonstrated beyond a doubt

that the defense was organized before the crime was committed. It

demonstrated, moreover, the existence of a wide-spread conspiracy,

the conspiracy of intelligence and brains, as well as of experience

in handling the telegraph and the press. John F. Beggs had said

that Cronin was not dead and would turn up all right, and if the

scheme of disposing of Dr. Cronin's body on the night of May 4th

had not been frought with some misadventure, some miscarriage of

judgment, the public, not understanding the motive which underlied

the occasion, would probably have believed that what Beggs said was

correct. If all the marks of the crime had been obliterated, if the

body had not been found, if it had been disposed of, the murderers,

and those behind the murderers would have continued to charge that

Dr. Patrick H. Cronin was a British spy, and that his disappearance

was to be accounted for upon the hypothesis that he had gone to

England to testify against Parnell. This would have been the claim.

It was to confirm the impression made upon the minds of some of the

"dupes" of the triangle, that the disappearance, as well as all

traces of the crime were to be wiped out, so that the story would

be accepted that Cronin was a spy, and a traitor to the cause to

which he had always allied himself and which he had sworn to

defend, and that he had violated his oath and crossed the broad

Atlantic in order to testify against his own country and in behalf

of England.

The speaker proceeded to dissect the evidence at length. He paid

particular attention to the testimony of the medical witnesses for

the State, urging that it was entitled to full credence, and that

the prosecution received all the aid of science that was possible.

Continuing, Mr. Hynes said:

THE DEFENSE OF THE PRISONERS.

"Now what sort of a defense--because I propose to deal with that

first--what kind of a defense is made by these five prisoners? A

defense that is not a defense is worse than no defense at all. A

defense that utterly fails, as this defense in my judgment has

utterly failed, leaves the case of the prisoners stronger against

them than it was when the State rested. You expect some defense

when an accusation of this kind is brought against men. You are

looking for explanations. You are hoping, like merciful men, that

every circumstance and every word will find an explanation

consistent with innocence, and when the defense fails to meet the

accusation and to furnish an explanation, then it is disastrous to

the defendants. The only defense that is set up here is the common

defense that is set up for the commonest criminal--the favorite

defense of an alibi. I am not here to abuse all the witnesses that

appeared to prove alibis for these defendants. I remember that on

the evening of the 4th of May Mrs. Whalen and Miss McCormick say

they went out of the house and were out until after 10 o'clock. I

do know that Miss McCormick said they went out about the time the

boys were getting ready to go away to the saloon. These boys that

went to the saloon fix the hour of supper all the way from 7 to

half-past 8 o'clock, fluctuating between 7 and half-past 8 o'clock;

that is the value of an alibi. In fixing the time, the human mind

does not go back, unless there is something special about

it--unless there is something at the time of the act to associate

the time with the act. That makes them a part of each other and

relating to each other at the time of the act; not by mere

recollection afterward.

"All these witnesses testify that Patrick O'Sullivan got home on

the evening of the 4th of May between half-past 5 and 6 o'clock. We

had the statement of Mr. O'Sullivan himself, made to Captain

Schaack--and he ought to know better than they--that he got home at

half-past 7 o'clock, a difference of an hour and a half or nearly

two hours in Patrick O'Sullivan's own statement when he talked with

Captain Schaack. He said he arrived home at half-past 7, and that

he was not out of his house that evening after he got home. They

all say he got home about half-past 5 or 6 o'clock--every witness

here. Who knows best, and what is the value of recollection as to

the hour when the thing occurred? They all, with the exception of

Mulcahey, swear that he was not out of his house after that

time--after supper; that he sat down for a time in the house and

then went to bed with Mulcahey. He, himself, feeling that he had

been seen out of the house that night, at least back in the alley

near the Carlson cottage, sent for Captain Schaack while he was

still a prisoner in the jail, and said he wanted to make a

correction of his former statement. He was out of the house that

night, he said, but only out to the alley in the rear of his barn."

"That is not the testimony," said Mr. Donahoe.

"That is the testimony," insisted Mr. Hynes, "and I will refer to

it."

"No," rejoined Mr. Donahoe, "he said he went to the rear of the

barn. I have got the testimony here."

O'SULLIVAN'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

"I have got the testimony, too," said Mr. Hynes, "and I will read

it. He said he went to the rear of the shed in the alley. Let me

call your attention also to the fact that Mulcahey, his room-mate,

does admit that he was out of the house that night about 8 o'clock

or half-past 8--out in the yard. Mulcahey fixes the supper at about

half-past 7 o'clock; so that he has him out in the yard about 8 or

half-past 8 that night, and not another soul in the house knew he

was out of the house. All of them swore that he did not leave the

house. Do I say that they perjured themselves? No; not all of

them."

"Do I understand you to say," interrupted Mr. Donahoe, "that

Mulcahey swore he was out of the house?"

"Mulcahey swears," replied Mr. Hynes, "that he was out at 8 or

half-past 8 in the yard."

"He did not swear to it in this court," said Mr. Donahoe.

"He swore to it in this court," retorted Mr. Hynes, "and I will

read you his testimony. It is perfectly proper, gentlemen,"

continued Mr. Hynes, addressing the jury, "for Mr. Donahoe to

challenge my statements. I invite him to do it--first, to correct

myself if I am in error, and, secondly, to show that I am right if

I make a statement of that kind. Here is Captain Schaack's

statement. Captain Schaack says: 'There is one thing I forgot; in

conversation with O'Sullivan I asked him where he was on the 4th of

May. He said he was on the ice wagon all day. I asked him what time

he came home in the evening, and he said 7 or 7:30. He had his

supper and went to bed about 8 or 8:30, and about 9:30 some men

came home, and he got up and let them in and went to bed again. I

asked him if he was positive that he was not away from his house,

and he said he was positive he was not; that he was in the house

all the evening. After he was in the jail he sent for me and I came

down to see him in the jail. He told me he had forgot to tell me he

was out of the house that night in the rear of the shed.'"

Here Mr. Donahoe objected, saying that nothing was said about

O'Sullivan's being in the alley. Mr. Hynes said that if he was

beyond the shed he was of necessity in the alley. A short dispute

followed, in which some testimony was read, which was finally won

by Mr. Hynes, who then continued:

"There is no more point about his being on one side of the shed

than on the other; the point lies in the value of the alibi. They

put young Knight on the stand and there is nothing that better

illustrates the value of an alibi than his testimony. They put on

Menahan and they both swore that the two Hylands came there on

Sunday afternoon about 5 o'clock. Knight swears that O'Sullivan was

in the house from a point of time between 4 and 5 o'clock on the

afternoon of Sunday, May 5, and that when the Hylands came in he

shook hands with them, and he was not out of the house from that

time until he went out at 10 o'clock that night, when it is

conceded that O'Sullivan was down at Mrs. Conklin's at that time,

and did not get home until half-past 7 or 8. And yet they could put

Knight on the stand--honestly swearing, because there was no proof

that he was swearing falsely--honestly swearing and insisting,

under Judge Longenecker's cross-examination, that O'Sullivan was

not out of the house from 4 or 5 o'clock until 10 o'clock that

Sunday night. But everybody knows he was out. He was with Detective

Murray down at Mrs. Conklin's. Everybody concedes that he did not

get home until half-past 7 or 8 o'clock.

WORTHLESSNESS OF THE ALIBI.

"Now, there is the value of an alibi. Knight says that the two

Hylands got there between 4 and 5 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and

were in the house and did not leave until about 10 o'clock. The

tall Hyland said nothing about their leaving O'Sullivan's house in

the afternoon. Recess came, and I wondered where the memories were

put together, and the fact was recalled that it had already

appeared in the evidence that O'Sullivan was down at the Conklin's

house at those hours. When the Smaller Hyland went on the stand in

the afternoon he said they went there between 4 and 5 o'clock. He

said O'Sullivan was not at home and they went off to a ball game

and did not return until about 7:30 in the evening. Others of

O'Sullivan's household testified to the same state of facts. Knight

swears that the Hylands never left the house that Sunday

afternoon--that they were there all those hours and he was in the

parlor talking to them. Menahan swears that the Hylands came there

about 5 o'clock, and that he did not believe he was out of the

house except a few minutes when he was only around the yard. Every

time he went back to the house the Hylands were there, and he said

he knew they did not leave the house except to step out of the door

for a moment. But were they at O'Sullivan's that afternoon? There

is the value of their alibi. Would not the alibi for the Hylands be

just as good as their alibi for Saturday night? Would not their

alibi for that Sunday afternoon when O'Sullivan was down at Mr.

Conklin's with Detective Murray, be just as good as the alibi for

Saturday night? An alibi defense! But there is nothing tells better

upon the alibi than O'Sullivan's own testimony. Those people swear

he was home, covering the time when old man Carlson testified that

voices were heard in the Carlson cottage at 7 o'clock. Mr. Carlson

said he saw Martin Burke come out of the door at 5 o'clock on

Saturday afternoon and spoke to him, and Burke said: 'I guess it is

not too early to fix up,' and old Jonas said: 'I guess not.' Burke

went in, and he came out again at 7 o'clock, and old man Carlson

heard the voices of some men inside the cottage. And it was old

Jonas who testified that Patrick O'Sullivan admitted to Captain

Schaack that he got home about 7 or half-past 7 o'clock that

evening. He did not get home before that, and he (O'Sullivan) took

his supper and went to bed.

"Now the others swear that he was home from half-past 5 or before 6

o'clock up to supper time, and was not out of the house once,

except, as stated by Mulcahey, when he went into the yard at

half-past 7 or 8 o'clock. O'Sullivan says himself he was out. I

don't care whether you put it as far as the shed, or the rear of

the shed, as Captain Schaack put it in his direct examination. The

fact that he was out and away from the house shows the value of the

alibi! I don't claim that O'Sullivan was in the house when Dr.

Cronin entered. If he was he was not immediately in view, because

the word sent to the doctor was that O'Sullivan was out of town,

and his card was presented, on which the Doctor would go and attend

to the business; it would not answer the purpose that O'Sullivan

should appear in the room the moment the Doctor entered. At least

he was not in the immediate view of the Doctor when he entered the

room, because his presence would have excited the Doctor's

suspicion. The Doctor certainly did not see him in that room, if he

was there, until after the door was closed behind him and after the

first blow was struck that Mrs. Hoertel heard.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN MEMORY.

"Now, gentlemen, such is the value of human memory. These witnesses

said they were there up to O'Sullivan's time of departure, and he

was at home at supper. You see their anxiety to be able to account

for O'Sullivan's whereabouts, and to be able to fix the time that

would answer his purpose. When Tom Whalen was put on the stand I

think I cross-examined him myself as to the hour in which he was in

the habit of getting home. 'Oh,' he said, 'at various hours,' but

it was finally narrowed down to the fact that he got home about

6:30. He had to go about a mile and a half to his home, and he said

that he generally got there about 7. Then as soon as he saw that I

was endeavoring to pin him down to an earlier hour, taking the hour

he quitted work as a gauger, he said he would sometimes loaf around

the barn and talk ten or fifteen minutes with the men. He said also

that they generally waited supper for him after he got home. That

shows that supper was late. It appeared that the ladies went out

after supper. They say they went out on their own suggestion.

Probably they did. They were absent. I am glad they were absent,

but if they had not been they probably would have said they had

seen O'Sullivan that evening. O'Sullivan would say to them, 'Don't

you remember that I was here?' and they would not deny it, but

would believe it, and in their anxiety to help and save him they

would believe it surely and swear to it. That is all I wish to say

about those ladies. It was necessary to get supper late. Mrs.

Hoertel had seen a man standing between the two houses inside the

fence about 8 o'clock--probably five or ten minutes past 8 o'clock.

She saw a man standing between the Carlson cottage and the little

cottage in which the Carlsons lived. He was standing on the

sidewalk inside the fence--in other words, close to the back door

of the Carlson cottage; when she got on Roscoe street she saw the

man there. The question arises, was not that Patrick O'Sullivan?

and so supper is belated, and we have an attempt to show that he

was not out of the house. Mulcahey says that he was out of the yard

between 8 and 8:30 o'clock. I don't know anything about Mulcahey's

conduct or whereabouts that evening except what he told us. He was

O'Sullivan's bed-fellow, and his bed-fellow from the first night

that he arrived from those regions in Pennsylvania that have become

celebrated for crimes of this nature."

"I object and except to those remarks," cried Mr. Donahoe, angrily.

"You know the Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania," continued Mr. Hynes,

"down in that notorious valley."

"I don't think," remarked Judge McConnell, in a mildly

expostulating tone, "that we ought to refer to that, or draw any

inference from it."

"I think," responded Mr. Hynes, "I have a right to speak about the

locality from where a party comes, but I bow to your honor's

suggestion in the matter. At any rate, gentlemen of the jury, I can

argue from dates. He arrived here on the 3d of April, but on your

honor's suggestion I withdraw anything of that kind and wish the

jury not to consider it. It is not a thing I should refer to,

according to his honor's suggestion, and I don't want you to

consider it, but consider this, that Mulcahey was the first to

arrive on the scene here. Knight came afterward; Brennan came

afterward; I don't know when Boyington began to appear there, but

three men came to O'Sullivan's after Mulcahey arrived. He was not

working for O'Sullivan but he was taken right into O'Sullivan's own

room. Mulcahey says he was out about 8 or half past 8 o'clock. He

does not say he was out himself; I don't know whether he was or

not, but he says O'Sullivan was out in the yard about that time. It

was dark at eight o'clock on the 4th of May; that is, I mean it was

night, and as dark as it can be with the stars shining and a

quarter moon. The moon went down about 11 o'clock that night. It

was off in the southwest, nearly south at that hour. It was shining

in on the south side of the Carlson cottage. There was a man there.

They didn't know whether they had been seen or recognized or not.

They didn't know whether more than one man was seen or not. At any

rate, there is a confession that at that time Patrick O'Sullivan

was out of the house."

The speaker went on to consider the testimony of Nieman, the

saloon-keeper, and said that it was proven beyond a doubt that

Coughlin, O'Sullivan and Kunze were in the saloon late on the night

of May 4th. There was no earthly doubt about it. If there were, he

would ask that the defendants be acquitted. All the facts and all

the evidence tended to show that the saloon-keeper was accurate in

his dates and correct in his statements, and there could be no

mistake about it. The counsel went over Kunze's connection with

Coughlin, Coughlin's alibi so far as it related to the night of the

murder, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the curious Smith,

the identity of Burke with the man that rented the Carlson cottage,

and the connection of Kunze as a tool of Coughlin with the

conspiracy, and urged that every circumstance pointed conclusively

to the guilt of these defendants. The identification of Coughlin by

Mertes, the milkman, was beyond peradventure, while the telephone

messages that had passed between Coughlin and O'Sullivan showed the

extent in which they had been in commadeation. Numerous exceptions

to the statement of the speaker were made by Counselor Donahoe and

other attorneys for the prisoners, but the speaker proceeded

without paying apparent attention to these interruptions. The alibi

provided for Burke was shown to be unreliable, and the charges

against the triangle, the row in Camp 20 and the appointment of a

secret committee to try the physician were dissected at length. The

evidence of witnesses regarding the memorable meetings of that

body, taken in connection with Beggs' mysterious actions and his

correspondence with Spellman, of Peoria, showed beyond a shadow of

a doubt that the conspiracy to accomplish the ends of the opponents

of Dr. Cronin had existed.

Mr. Hynes proceeded to contend that "the trunk was bought and the

valise was bought, the scheme was designed of stripping the clothes

from the body for the purpose of hiding the corpse and of raising

the cry to satisfy those to whom Dr. Cronin had been denounced as a

spy that he had taken his leave and gone away to the other side of

the water to give up his information and deliver himself and all

that he knew into the hands of the British government. If his name

was once successfully connected with the word 'spy,' if plausible

proof were adduced that he was a spy for the British government,

these lies, accusations against the triangle, would be as idle as

the wind. His fate would have been regarded as no more than just by

Irishmen devoted to a cause which they believed to have been

betrayed. It was the interest of the reputation of the men who were

attacked on a charge upon which he had collected evidence; it was

the interest of the suppression of the conclusion he had arrived

at; it was the interest of the men who were exposed by the honest

investigation and courageous report; it was the interest of these

men that Dr. Cronin should not be understood to be murdered in this

country, because to be murdered here was to confess the truth of

his charges. If those charges were untrue, if they were without

foundation, if there was anything wanting in the evidence of them,

gentlemen of the jury, there would be no occasion for killing him.

No man was ever killed that way for a mere personal hatred. He must

have the evidence of these men's robberies and wrong-doings to

prove his assertions, and it was in the interest of their

reputation, in order that they might continue to plunder and rob,

and impose themselves upon a sacred cause, that his reputation was

to be attacked and his memory branded as that of a spy killed upon

British soil. The evidence in this case, gentlemen of the jury,

that immediately after the disappearance of Dr. Cronin we had the

assurance from John F. Beggs that he was all right and would turn

up. Then we had Mike Whalen, who testifies that the dispatches

showed he was seen here and there and elsewhere--that he had run

away, that he had gone away--where? Gone off to report to the

British government in London. That was the suggestion. It was not

sufficient. It was not sufficient that he should be killed, that

his life should be stricken out by a foul and cowardly murder

without trial and without warning, behind his back, that his sins

should be visited upon him, but his reputation must be stamped to

death, his standing among Irishmen must be assailed as a man

utterly and entirely fallen and disgraced and his character

generally arraigned and pilloried as that of a spy and a renegade

in the interests of those men in whose interests he was killed."

HOT SHOT FOR THE PRISONERS.

Mr. Hynes resumed his address at the opening of court on the

following day. He denounced the prisoners as members of a band of

blood-thirsty conspirators, and dealing with the case against

Beggs, urged that the whole of the testimony showed conclusively

that he was identified with the crime. The alibi for the white

horse was considered at length; the speaker taking the ground that

the identification of Dinan's animal by Mrs. Conklin and John T.

Scanlan, Jr., was conclusive. Continuing Mr. Hynes said:

"I call your attention to the fact that not from the opening to the

close of Mr. Donahoe's speech was one word said in condemnation of

the murder of Dr. Cronin--not one adjective used to describe it,

not one sentiment of dissent or dissatisfaction, disapprobation or

condemnation of that crime, that stands out as the blackest and

reddest of modern times. 'I do not know whether Dr. Cronin was a

spy or not,' says the representative of P. O'Sullivan, addressing

this jury, 'and I don't care.'"

"That is right," interrupted Mr. Donahoe, "I don't care anything

about it."

"No, sir," said Mr. Hynes, in an impassioned tone, turning around

and facing the attorney for O'Sullivan, "but as an officer of the

court, as a law-abiding citizen, as a member of this human family,

as a Christian gentleman, I hope, and as a man with the common

instincts of mankind--in mercy's name, in decency's name, in

humanity's name, find somewhere within the possibilities of your

character an impulse to denounce a murder so infamous as this, if

you dare to do it with your client's retainer in your hands."

"Not one word of condemnation, gentlemen," continued Mr. Hynes to

the jury; "not one word of defense in the memory of that brave,

courageous, honest man, whose only fault--a fatal fault--was his

honest courage, when these cowardly fiends assembled in their

numbers in that room, with a dim light, and after the door was

closed behind his back, his heart throbbing with sympathy for

anticipated suffering, with anxiety for the relief of human pain;

scarcely had the door closed upon his back, when these cowardly

murderers fell upon him from behind, and, like the miscreants they

were, beat out his life.

"Oh, gentlemen, what savagery and brutality is palmed off for

patriotism! Many and many a hot and rash act has brought calamity

and suffering and shame to the face of the Irish people, but in all

their history in the past, and in all the history that they can

make in the future, this will stand out as the one conspicuous

monument of shame, casting its dark shadow upon the reputation and

character of an honorable and generous race--a race who, as a rule,

sympathize with the suffering, sympathize with the weak, and are

rarely, if ever, cowardly. But that honorable and courageous

sentiment, when it is perverted, and when it is violated, the

higher the height of generosity from which it fails, the more

calamitous the break and the greater the destruction that it

causes."

Speaking of the discovery of the body and its condition, the orator

said: "The 'Agnus Dei,' the emblem of his faith and his religion,

was around his neck. I suppose that these men thought that they

were prompted by a religious sentiment, when they saved from touch

and left upon his remains the 'Agnus Dei,' the symbol of his faith.

I suppose these men think that there is a religious sentiment in

that. A sentiment that can beat out the life and violate the ten

commandments, and the divine decree issued from the mountain, 'Thou

shalt not kill,' and still leaves a religious emblem around the

neck, is but superstition; it is not faith; it is not religion; it

is not morality. And, gentlemen, do not think that it represents

the conscience of the Catholic. It does indicate one thing; that

the men who killed Dr. Cronin, stripped him of his clothes, and put

him in the catch-basin, had some respect for that emblem. That is

all that it indicates, and it simply helps to identify the men who

committed the murder. They would not desecrate it upon his neck by

tearing it from his dead body; they would give him that advantage

after they had killed him, as they thought. But they could bury

that emblem, that they thought sacred in a sewer."

Mr. Hynes concluded his speech in this form:

"Oh, there is no conspiracy behind! There is no citadel of crime,

your Honor," suddenly turning around and addressing the Court, "of

which these men are simply the outworks! There is no dark nest of

criminals behind these to be uncovered, and uncovered only in the

face of dire results of the awful crime that they have committed!

"And committed for what? What was the motive? Judge Wing appealed

to you, and Mr. Donahoe talked to you as if a prejudice of race or

religion had any place in this trial. Did it ever occur to any man

connected with the prosecution or the defense that any question of

that kind could enter into the breasts of this jury? Do you think

that Judge Wing or Mr. Donahoe has any apprehensions of that

kind--that these men should be punished because they are Irishmen,

or because he says they are Catholics? They may be Catholic in

name. I do not know whether they are Irishmen. Burke, it appears,

was born in Ireland, and Donahoe made a point when an inquiry was

made of Colleran, as to what county he was born in, and it appears

he was born in the County of Mayo. Why was that inquiry made?

Because Colleran was from Mayo, and it was simply to show that they

were neighbors and came from places within a few miles of each

other. Simply to show to the jury that we had to go to his friend

to get whatever information we could, and to show the earnestness

of that friendship. In that Mr. Donahoe discovers an attempt to

appeal to the prejudices of this jury against the County Mayo man.

"Gentlemen, Judge Wing solemnly submitted to you a proposition that

he did not know how you might feel as to the right or duty of an

Irishman, separated from the land of his birth, taking an interest

in the affairs of that land after he has become a citizen of the

United States. I am not here to criticise an Irishman's right to do

that; so far as I have anything to say on that subject it would be

for me to defend it, because our country, first, last, and all the

time, is for the right of humanity the world over, and where

humanity is suffering, and where liberty is trampled in the dust,

there I think is to be found the cause of the true devotee of

freedom. It is a natural thing that an Irishman, born in Ireland,

or even the son of a man born in Ireland, should take an interest

in that land and in its struggle for national recognition and for

self-government. There are very few American citizens who do not

sympathize with that effort. I justify every legitimate and

honorable endeavor of every Irishman to better the condition of his

native land, but let it be done as Washington did it; let it be

done as Emmet attempted to do it--in honorable, open, manly and

legitimate endeavor to establish self-government, and not by making

war upon defenseless men and women and attacking the lives of

non-combatants.

"For the past nine or ten years, when these acts have been charged

on the triangle, and when these lawless, fruitless and destructive

acts of the Irish cause have been charged against the triangle----

"I except to these remarks," said Mr. Donahoe. "There is no

evidence to that."

"I suppose that the speech of Tom O'Connor," said Mr. Hynes, "that

these men had been sent to English prisons, is not considered in

evidence by the gentleman."

"There had been conversation of that kind," remarked the Court, and

the objection of Mr. Donahoe being overruled, Mr. Donahoe took an

exception.

"I apprehend," continued Mr. Hynes, "there has not been a rational,

thinking and intelligent Irishman who has not recognized the fact

that every one of these acts was embarrassing if not destructive to

the cause of Ireland; that every one of them simply met as an echo

a new penal act or an act of coercion on the part of the English

government, and crippled the hands and silenced the voices, even,

of the true champions of Ireland making their fight under Mr.

Parnell. Anything of that kind, I am willing to join with Mr.

Foster in saying was a perversion of the purposes of the

organization to which these gentlemen belonged; a perversion of its

intent; a departure from its policy and its methods; and, as I said

last night, invented by them, not for the cause of Ireland or to

serve its ends, but simply as a means to excuse and cover up the

disappearance of money that had been stolen.

"Some allusion has been made by Mr. Donahoe to myself. I do not

propose to refer to it, except in one respect. What possible

personal motive could I have, except the motive that every citizen

should be actuated by, and that should control the conduct of every

lawyer engaged in the prosecution of a great case like this? Should

I fail in my duty when invited into this case by the State's

Attorney to assist him in its prosecution? Was the fact that I

first saw the light of day in the same land that Martin Burke did,

going to embarrass my conduct or to hinder me in the performance of

my duty in any respect? A scandal to my profession, and a shame and

reproach to my people, would I indeed be, if for one moment I

forgot my simple function of an American lawyer, in an American

court, before an American jury, pleading for the vindication of

American law. If these men, unfortunately situated as they are

to-day, have been personal enemies, I do not know them. I certainly

have no personal feeling; I contemplate them only with pain and

with regret and with shame. I never saw one of them before the

commission of this crime, except John F. Beggs, and I assure you

that although I had seen John F. Beggs, and had spoken with him and

had a very slight acquaintance with him, I did not know that the

man indicted under that name was the prisoner at the bar, until the

first day that I came into court here. Whatever relation I had with

him was not of an unkind character; so that I come to the trial of

this case free from the impulse of personal motive--having no

anxiety except an anxiety for the punishment of crime, the

vindication of the law, the maintenance of its majesty, the

sanctity of human life, and the punishment of the foulest crime

that has blotted the calendar of this State, or of any other State

of this American Union.

"Now, you have listened to me with patience; I thank you for your

attention through the desultory speech that it was necessary for me

to make after the exhaustive and able manner in which the people's

case had been presented to you by the two distinguished gentlemen

who preceded me, Judge Longenecker and Mr. Ingham. In leaving you,

gentlemen of the jury, and this case and my associates in it, I

trust I leave it without any trace of personal feeling toward

anybody--counsel or anybody else in this case. If, in the sharp

fight of a lawsuit--of a trial like this--under the spur of combat

at times, I have said or done anything that has wounded the

feelings or hurt the sensibilities of any man, no matter who, I am

sorry for it. I want you to take this case. It is a great case and

a serious case. There never was a greater nor more serious duty

devolved upon any twelve men on God's earth. It is as sacred and as

important as the duty of the soldiers who went out to fight for the

flag and maintain the unity of the States and the sovereignty of

the Constitution. I commit it to you with all its awful solemnity;

with all its awful responsibilities, feeling confident that in the

breast of every one of these twelve men beats the heart of an

honorable, honest, a patriotic and a law-abiding man; that your

verdict will be the verdict of your conscience--a verdict that your

consciences and judgments will approve and that the Court will

ratify, that God will sanctify, that will vindicate the law and

commit the guilty to a just punishment."

* * * * *

FOSTER'S PLEA FOR BEGGS.

At the conclusion of Mr. Hynes' argument, Mr. Foster, who appeared

specially in behalf of John F. Beggs, claimed the attention of the

Court. Among other things he said:

"Dr. Cronin was murdered. A more dastardly and heinous murder, a

more atrocious and cold-blooded murder, in my judgment was never

perpetrated. Are the gentlemen for the State satisfied with that?

In this connection allow me to urge you to pause and consider. You

remember what it is to which I refer. Whatever you may see of error

on the part of counsel, in the name of heaven don't charge it on

the head of his client. Don't charge the forgetfulness; don't

charge the investigation; don't charge the bad judgment of the

lawyer upon the head of the client he is attempting to represent.

The man who does not say that the murderer or murderers of Dr.

Cronin ought to be punished is a man whose friendship I don't

prize, and whose citizenship, in my judgment, we can get along

better without than with. Those are my sentiments; that is my

belief; but in the name of God, gentlemen, must an innocent man

suffer because of a crime which we concede as being perpetrated in

our midst? Are the minds of men to be inflamed, are men to lose

their reason by visiting vengeance on a man who is charged of the

diabolical crime of the murder which is being investigated here?

"These are the questions to which I direct your attention to some

extent. Because a man has espoused a cause, because a man is

identified with a clan which may not meet your approval or may not

meet mine, that is no reason, no excuse under heaven, why his life

should be destroyed. And I thank my friend, Judge Longenecker, for

the statement which he made at the very threshold of this case as

to what the issue involved really was. In his opening he used this

language in reference to the Clan-na-Gael Society: 'Remember that

we are not called upon to try the Clan-na-Gael organization; we are

not here to prosecute that organization or to defend it. If that

organization has no right to exist, then it is the duty of the

government under which it exists to take hold of it. It is not the

duty of those trying the criminal case to settle that question. As

I said, no matter what our feelings may be in regard to this, no

matter what our ideas may be about an organization formed to make

war with a country at peace with ours, we are not called to try

that question, and you are not sworn to try that issue.' Gentlemen,

every word of that is true."

Mr. Foster then went on to comment upon the questions relating to

prejudice on the part of the jurors put during their examination.

He said that those questions were proper and wise, because it was

needful to ascertain if they entertained any religious or radical

prejudice. Then he said: "John F. Beggs must be convicted of the

murder of Patrick H. Cronin, or he must be discharged. There is no

question here as to whether he is a Protestant or as to whether he

is a Catholic. There is no question here as to whether he is a

Clan-na-Gael or whether he is not. He is a murderer and must be

punished for murder or he must be discharged by your verdict. The

issue is simple--easy to understand. No intricate pleadings are

needed in this case; no intricate issues are involved. The plain

and simple question is, did John F. Beggs kill Dr. Cronin? Not

necessarily with his own hand, but was he a part and parcel of a

conspiracy to destroy the life of Patrick H. Cronin? Freed of all

rubbish, that question is left to your consideration and no other.

There are some things, gentlemen, of which I complain in this case,

and I believe I have a right to complain of them. The law in its

wisdom has provided means for the punishment of crime. One of the

most important offices in the State of Illinois, one of the most

remunerative offices is the office of State's Attorney of Cook

county. Why is that office sought for? Because it is honorable,

because it is remunerative, and the lawyers are few who would not

gladly assume the responsibilities of the office of public

prosecutor. The law not only provides for a public prosecutor, but

it provides for five assistants. Mr. Foster then referred to the

importance of having a competent and trustworthy man for this

office, and then remarked that it was singular that the State's

Attorney with his five assistants could not attend to the business

of the county." At this juncture he made it evident that he was

opposed to the appointment of Mr. Hynes to assist the prosecution,

for he said:

"No sooner was there an arrest made on account of the murder of Dr.

Cronin than war was declared in the opposing camps of the

Clan-na-Gael in Chicago. It was war to the knife, and the knife to

the hilt, which has been kept up incessantly from that time to

this. What was the first thing to do? Employ a good lawyer. Not

satisfied with the provisions of the statute to which I have

referred--not satisfied with the ability of my learned friend,

Judge Longenecker, and all his assistants, they looked for another

man. They cast about for a man of extraordinary ability to come to

the rescue and hang the lot of opposing Clan-na-Gaels, and as they

cast about for the man, he, who of all others is a power before a

jury, the man who first attracts their attention is the man who

last addressed you--a man whose home is in the courts--a man who

only lives to address juries, and by addressing juries and

courts--a man who can win cases before juries regardless of the

facts by the power of his ingenuity and his eloquence. That is the

man they want; that is the man they will have, who, in addition to

the power I have referred to, is a partisan in the conflict, an

Irishman and a Clan-na-Gael of the opposing faction. What other man

among the two thousand lawyers at the Chicago bar except William J.

Hynes, is the man to whom their attention is called?"

Having commented on the able arguments of Mr. Ingham and Mr. Hynes,

Mr. Foster said:

"All I desire that you should do, gentlemen, is this: After the

arguments are finished, when the silvery-tongued orator is done and

you retire to deliberate upon and consider your verdict, sit down

and wait until your blood is cool, sit down and wait until calm

judgment and cool discretion take the place of frenzied emotion,

before you act, and by your action commit a deed which shall haunt

you to your grave.

"Only a century ago Ireland blossomed as a rose. From the center to

the circumference of that beautiful isle the smoke-stacks opened

their black mouths toward the sky. Throughout the length and

breadth of the land the fires glittered and gleamed upon the forges

of industry, and everywhere the buzz of the spindle and the clatter

of the loom were heard. Among the illustrious names which history

gives us we find among them some of the grandest statesmen, some of

the most eloquent orators and most learned scholars that ever lived

upon this earth, either in times modern or ancient, were the sons

of the Emerald Isle. But how have the mighty fallen! Armed forces

have invaded the territory; the jury and the courts have been

superseded by the drumhead court-martial; coats of tar and feathers

have been resorted to; men, women and little children have been

publicly whipped; the parliament has been stolen away; the

smoke-stacks are cold and crumbled, and fires are out on the forges

and in the furnaces, and the spindle and the loom are still."

Counsel read selections from the address of John F. Beggs to

President Harrison at Indianapolis at the time he visited that city

with the Irish national committee, and also President Harrison's

reply to the address of the organization, and then said: "Do you

question for a moment the loyalty of the Irish people in America,

and would you condemn them for their loyalty to their mother

country? It is not charged in this case that the Clan-na-Gaels are

dynamiters. If it had been my brother Hynes is the only one

connected with this case who could give you reliable and full

information on that subject, because he is a dynamiter. It may

possibly have been that some men would think that by throwing a

little dynamite into England it would set Englishmen thinking

favorably of the project of that old statesman, Gladstone, to give

to the Green Isle liberty to govern herself. Or perhaps it might

have been regarded as a matter of retaliation for the suffering and

indignity which the sons and daughters of the Green Isle had

encountered for years. I do not know anything about it and

therefore shall not refer to it.

"Now, gentlemen, I have got an unpleasant duty to perform. I

realize the fact that when we step upon the narrow walks of the

city of the dead we are treading upon sacred ground. He who speaks

of a soul departed in any other than words of commendation had

better weigh well the purport of his language. Human charity is

ever willing to bury with the bodies of men all the evil which they

do, and remember only their virtues. That is commendable. That is

right. Yet, gentlemen, I say I have a painful duty to perform

because of certain expressions made by my client during the life of

the man whose soul is now in eternity, and in order that I may

protect his life I feel that I am justified even in censuring the

conduct of the man during life, who has passed into eternity. The

man who supposes or has supposed that Dr. Cronin, while here on

earth, was an angel in disguise, is very much mistaken. Now, is

that hard to say of a man who is dead? I hope you do not

misconstrue the purpose for which I have stated it, or the object I

have in view, but because my client has given his opinion while Dr.

Cronin was alive. I have a right to give it so long as my client is

alive in order that he may live, and that my language may be

understood and justified in every regard. Whether or not this is an

illegal organization, whether or not the dynamite policy existed as

stated by Judge Longenecker in his opening argument, whether or not

the purposes of the organization are to send dynamite to England

and there to destroy human life and the lives of men and women and

of children, as my friend says, I know not, but if that was the

object of the organization the most active member and the promoter

of the society and the purposes of the organization was Dr. Patrick

H. Cronin.

"To that statement I emphatically object," said Judge Longenecker.

"We wanted to prove the reverse of that, and that Dr. Cronin was

expelled because he bitterly opposed the dynamite doctrine, and we

were not allowed to do it. It is not right to make such an

assertion against a dead man, and, for one, I will not sit here and

listen to it. So far from Dr. Cronin ever taking a dynamite policy,

so far from his being an active member in furthering such a

purpose, we wished to prove that he wrote a circular bitterly

opposing the dynamite policy, for which he was expelled from his

camp. It is not right, it is not manly to charge upon a dead man

something that is entirely without foundation and opposed to the

truth."

"I claim that I have the right to argue that he was an active

member in that project," retorted Mr. Foster, "because the

gentleman shows that he organized camp after camp in this city and

organized them on one basis."

"And that basis was diametrically opposed to any dynamite policy

and also opposed to the triangle, which dictated that policy," said

Judge Longenecker. "If Cronin were here and could defend himself it

would be a different matter."

"I do not know of any testimony from which you can argue that there

was any dynamite policy, Mr. Foster," said the court. "I certainly

do not know of any such testimony, and therefore I do not think I

can permit you to proceed on that ground."

"It is in testimony that the dynamite policy of the organization

was approved, because they were all reunited," said Mr. Foster. "I

know what Hynes has said and I claim the right to reply to him

unless the gentleman for the prosecution particularly desires to

interrupt me. He does not disturb me at all but simply interrupts

me."

"I shall interrupt you just as long as you unjustly attack a dead

man who can not defend himself," said Judge Longenecker.

"There is evidence in this case, gentlemen, to the effect that

Cronin, in lifetime, did organize certain societies, and what that

evidence is I will read by and by. If I go beyond that evidence at

all, and state what I can not prove, I shall suffer by it, because

if I depart from the facts as you know them to be, any remarks I

may make will have no effect whatever upon you. I do say this, that

if it were not a dynamite policy, and the question was not whether

it was wrong to send dynamite to England, that it was wrong to

steal a hundred thousand dollars to keep in this country which

ought to have been spent in England, and sent there for the

destruction of the lives of men, women and children. Dr. Cronin

protested against that. Now, in the case of John F. Beggs, from the

commencement of this trial down to the present time, there has been

no objection taken before you. Where has been the concealment of a

fact? Where has there been any objection against testimony? Where

has there been an exception to the ruling of the court? Now, I am

not complaining because the learned lawyer objected and excepted,

but I say on behalf of my client that his life and connection in

this case in its ramifications has been an open book before you.

They called him before the coroner, and for hours he testified and

was examined by the coroner as prompted by my learned friend. He

was called before the grand jury and examined by the State's

Attorney and his assistants by the hour as to every fact within his

knowledge, as to every circumstance as to his whereabouts, and

everything their ingenuity could suggest. That was the reason why I

called my friend, Judge Longenecker, to the witness stand. I wanted

to show you, gentlemen, and I wanted you to know that this man had

been examined twice with reference to all the circumstances

surrounding him in this historic Camp 20. That examination had been

taken by a stenographer in shorthand in both places, and not a

single statement that John F. Beggs made on either of these

occasions has been disputed, and the gentlemen know it.

"I was impressed with the idea of my client's innocence the first

time I ever talked with him, and I am more than ever satisfied of

it at the present time. Where did they get those letters which he

wrote to Spelman and received from Spelman? Did he not send for the

chief of police, and tell them where he would find them in his

office, and yet the prosecution in this case makes those very

letters the foundation on which this jury is asked to take him out

and strangle him and destroy his life. The first thing that my

client is supposed to have said or done in connection with this

case, as alleged by a witness, that he said Dr. Cronin ought not to

be put on the trial committee to try Alexander Sullivan. It is in

evidence that Dr. Cronin made all the charges of embezzlement of

the funds, and the sending of the brothers to the English prison,

on which the triangle was to be tried, and would you, gentlemen,

like to be tried by a man you knew to be your enemy, whether it

might be for your life, your liberty or your property? You must

remember, gentlemen, that these facts complained of by Dr. Cronin

took place two years before Beggs was a member of the Clan-na-Gael,

and he spoke as he felt, and if the foundation on which he based

his remarks was true then his deduction was true, and you,

gentlemen, know that having made the charges of embezzlement and of

worse than murder against Alexander Sullivan and the triangle, he

was perfectly justified in saying that the Doctor was not a proper

man to sit on the investigating committee. It is charged by one

witness that Beggs is alleged to have said that Dr. Cronin was not

a fit man to belong to any Irish society. Why? Because Coughlin had

told him, and offered to make an affidavit to the effect, that Dr.

Cronin had admitted him to the secrets of the organization without

initiating him. It is claimed that Dr. Cronin was expelled from

Columbia Camp. Suppose he were, was he justified because he knew

all passwords and the grip and the ritual of the organization in

starting hostile organizations without any authority? It is in

proof here that one of his first acts after his expulsion was to

start a hostile camp with the same number and a name calculated to

mislead, for while he was expelled from Columbia Club, No. 98, he

organized Columbus Club, No. 96.

"How often do you hear the expression that a man is not fit to

belong to a church, or is not fit to belong to a political body?

Some of you gentlemen of the jury are Masons, others Odd Fellows,

and what would you think of a Mason, if in the judgment of the

lodge he was deemed a fit subject for expulsion, and who, after

being expelled and put out of the organization, went right across

the street and started a lodge of his own? He would have the

password, he would have the ritual. He would have all the necessary

forms and ceremonies and grips to enable him to start such a lodge,

and what would you say of such a man, especially if he named the

new lodge the same name as you gave yours? Counsel then referred to

the trial by the Presbyterian church of Professor Swing, and his

subsequent expulsion therefrom; to the trial of Professor Thomas by

the Methodist Church, and his expulsion therefrom for heresy;

charges which a few years before would have insured the burning of

those two men, then passed on to consider the disagreement in the

Episcopal Church which resulted in the formation of the Reformed

Episcopal Church, and inquired if the jury ever dreamed of men

being put on their trial in any of those churches for saying that

Dr. Swing was not fit to be in the Presbyterian Church, or that Dr.

Thomas was not fit to be in the Methodist Church.

"And yet," continued Mr. Foster, "the expressions they used were

the same as John F. Beggs is testified here to have used, and on

account of which they ask you to destroy his life. Beggs' statement

of his opinion giving the reasons upon which he made it, was

harmless, yet the gentlemen stand here and argue by the hour, and

ask you to find that Beggs was an enemy of Cronin because of these

expressions. Now, gentlemen, the evidence of John F. Finerty is

that Cronin was at that convention that appointed that trial

committee to investigate the old executive, commonly designated by

the name of the triangle. This is a point upon which we had some

dispute to-day, and I refer to it simply to show that I was correct

in my statement on that point. But the gentlemen have already

conceded that they were wrong and I was right. Now I say that these

were harmless expressions, and they are the only expressions which

have been shown in evidence, or of which any evidence existed. I

say existed, because if they ever existed anywhere they would have

been proven in evidence. That was all that Beggs ever said against

Cronin from the day of the beginning of the world down to the

present time. That was all. All that he ever said was the statement

that he ought not to have been on the trial committee which met at

Buffalo, and from the statements made to him, naming the man who

made them, that he (Cronin) had no business belonging to any Irish

societies. They say that he claimed friendship for Alexander

Sullivan--I shall refer to that hereafter--but did he ever denounce

Cronin? Never! Never! All the members of the organization have been

arrested, and brought to the State's attorney's office and

discharged, or brought here and sworn as witnesses, and not one of

them can say he ever heard a word--that he ever saw John F. Beggs

rise in his place and utter one word of denunciation against the

murdered Dr. Cronin.

"Gentlemen of the Jury, Beggs was right when he made that

statement. If you are going to hang him for that I may as well stop

here and now. Take him inside the narrow limits of the jail and

hang him, and let this farce end at once, and with it end the

institution which we term our glorious courts of justice."

Mr. Foster went on to say, that there was not one syllable in the

case from beginning to end to show that Beggs was not one of the

most consistent friends that Dr. Cronin ever had. No hatred had

been proven, no ill will shown. It was simply sought to convict

Beggs, because the testimony showed that Burke had gone to his

office twice in January and once in February. It was not now,

however, that he had ever gone there afterward, or that Beggs had

ever associated with him anywhere else. As for the proceedings of

Camp 20, it was simply unfortunate for Beggs that he had allowed

himself to be elected senior guardian of the camp. But for that he

would be walking upon the street and breathing the free air. Had he

had a headache on the 8th day of February, if he had a toothache,

if he had gone to the theatre with his wife, if any thing in God's

world had happened to him, except the chance that took him down to

preside for the first time after installation in the office of

senior guardian of camp 20, he would have been a free man that day.

There was no question about that, with no animosity toward Dr.

Cronin, and no ill will, and a clamor and a claim for unity and

peace was the offense that he had committed, and nothing more.

Mr. Foster concluded his speech on the morning of Saturday,

December 7th. He again reviewed the affairs of Camp 20, urging that

there was no proof of the existence of a secret committee, and no

evidence against Beggs. Stress was laid upon the fact that the

ex-senior guardian had set up no alibi, but that he had endeavored

to aid the State by every means in his power. In conclusion Mr.

Foster said:

"Now, there is another matter, gentlemen, to which I desire to call

your attention. I can imagine that an Irishman, with all the

hardships of his father in his mind, and all the hardships to which

he has been subjected, might feel as if he could take a dagger and

plunge it into the heart of a British spy, and then kneel down

before his God and ask a blessing of the Divinity upon him. But

John F. Beggs never believed that Dr. Cronin was a British spy.

John F. Beggs is not deserving of mercy if he stood at the head of

that cruel conspiracy to effect Dr. Cronin's murder. No words of

commendation, no thought of pity, not one syllable, would I say in

his behalf were he guilty of this atrocious and cold-blooded

murder, because John F. Beggs is the dupe of no man. He is the tool

of no man. He stands forth responsible for his acts, without a

mitigating circumstance if he is guilty. Therefore, I say to you,

gentlemen, in all candor and sincerity, you must either destroy the

life of John F. Beggs or else you must turn him free.

"Are you opposed to the execution of the death penalty? You and

each one of you have sworn that you were not. Are you waiting for a

murder more atrocious? In the name of heaven when do you expect to

hear of one? I am talking sense now. I am appealing to your reason

and your judgment. If John F. Beggs is guilty John F. Beggs must

die. Shame to the verdict, shame to the verdict, I say, which,

under the circumstances surrounding this case, would say, 'We will

not torture our minds and we have not the moral turpitude to hang a

man upon this evidence, but, by guessing and imagining and

speculating that he might be guilty, we will give him a term in the

penitentiary upon general principles and upon speculation.' Shame

to such a verdict as that. Humanity can stand no such outrage

perpetrated upon her citizens. I said yesterday that the conduct of

John F. Beggs had been an open book before you. Why, when the

organization of the coroner's jury was effected, one of the members

of Camp 20, Captain Thomas O'Connor, rushed to Beggs, as the

highest officer in the camp, and said: 'How about the secrets of

the organization? I have been subpoenaed as a witness.' What was

his reply? Was it concealment? Captain O'Connor, the most

prejudiced witness in this case against my client, the man who has

more feeling than any other witness against my client, is compelled

by truth to say that John F. Beggs said: 'Tell everything you

know.'

"Where was the concealment then? When the men who are interested in

the prosecution of the murder of Cronin, when the men who have

devoted the energies of their lives to the prosecution of these

defendants, in the finding out, the spying out and determining of

the guilty parties, go to the senior guardian, and say: 'What shall

we do when summoned before the officers of the law in regard to the

secrets of the society?' they are met with the prompt response:

'Tell everything you know.' No concealment. No covering. No

destruction of record. 'Tell everything you know.'

"How was it with Luke Dillon, who came from Philadelphia,

interested in the prosecution of this case, going home, whining

like a sick child, squealing like a stuck pig, because

investigation was going too far, and giving to the public the

secrets of the organization. But Beggs says: 'Tell everything you

know.'

"Gentlemen, my client has already suffered too much in this case.

He is ruined. A young man who has blossomed out in a noble

profession is forever ruined. It requires but a charge of this

kind, it matters not what your verdict may be, and the stain is

fastened upon his skirts and there it must stay forever. He has

already suffered too much, I have no peroration to make. I demand

your cool, deliberate judgment, and that is all I ask. I make no

appeal to your sympathy. On behalf of myself, and on behalf of

Beggs, and of my associates, I extend to you thanks for the kind

and patient manner in which you have listened to the testimony and

listened to my efforts at an argument.

"I hope the time is short when he will be able to thank each one of

you, to take each one of you by the hand and in person thank you

for his deliverance, and then may you be returned to the loved ones

at home, and may he be returned to the bosom of his loved wife, for

love makes the world so small that all the beauty is in one face,

all the music in one voice and all the rapture is in one kiss.

Gentlemen, I thank you."

* * * * *

FORREST'S ABLE PLEA ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS.