"If your Honor please, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, you sit in

judgment on the lives of your fellow-citizens. You act, you look,

like men who are thoroughly imbued with a sense of your

responsibility. You have listened attentively to all the details of

the testimony. You have listened with admiration to the discussion

of the testimony by the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded

me. You can not have failed to note the radical difference between

the method of treating the evidence by counsel for the defendant

and by counsel for the people. One is wrong, altogether wrong; the

other is right, altogether right. The question is an important one.

You will hear my discussion on it and the discussion of Brother

Mills, and then you will hear the Judge pronounce upon the method

of treating the evidence. You will pay no attention to what I say

about the law unless it commends itself to your reason, and unless

what I shall say is afterward given in principle or substance by

the Court. It must be that the method of treating the

circumstantial evidence has been pointed out clearly. The books are

filled with decisions, and our judges can not be radically

different in treating it. In England and America they treat it

alike, and therefore, I say the prosecution is altogether wrong, or

we are altogether wrong. The gentlemen for the prosecution tell you

that the law of circumstantial evidence is represented by the fable

of the farmer and the bunch of fagots, which fable was intended by

Aesop, and by all reproducers of Aesop, to illustrate, not

circumstantial evidence, but the fact that in unity there is

strength, or, to use the expression sometimes used in politics or

war,'United we stand, divided we fall.' We claim that that is

altogether wrong, and, if I am right, they are altogether wrong in

their method, and, if wrong in their method, my inference, is they

dare not apply the legal method. Judge Wing, Mr. Donahoe and myself

have applied the analytical method, which is adopted by every

scientific man and every searcher after truth. I propose,

gentlemen, to consume this afternoon in discussing the question as

to which is right in their method of considering the evidence. Mr.

Ingham commented upon the rule as laid down by the Supreme Court of

Illinois, and then quoted the instruction given by Judge Wing in a

case in which he appeared for the prosecution. You are convinced,

as jurors, if you are convinced as men, that it is right, when

properly understood, but you must not take one piece of this

instruction and consider it, when the Supreme Court in passing upon

a set of instructions never takes one by itself, but considers one

in the light of all the others. So you must consider these

instructions in the light of each other."

The counsel proceeded to read at extreme length from "Wells on

Circumstantial Evidence," with the view of showing the

unreliability of such testimony. Burrill's work on the same subject

was also considered.

He next read a decision of the Supreme Court, which, in effect,

declares that a verdict of guilty can only be arrived at when there

is no reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the

person charged, even though at the same time the only solution of

the crime is the theory of the guilt of the defendant. The life and

liberty of the citizen can not be sacrificed on the ground that

only by regarding him as guilty can the crime be explained. Mr.

Forrest then quoted a case showing that where a physical

possibility existed of the crime being committed by some other

means than that claimed in the theory of the guilt of the

defendant, the supposition of his innocence was not to be excluded

on the ground of its moral impossibility.

[Illustration: W. S. FORREST, LEADING COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE.]

An adjournment was taken at this point until 10 o'clock Monday

morning, December 9, when Mr. Forrest resumed his address to the

jury.

He began with an apology for his discussion of the question of law

on Saturday, stating that he thought it was his duty to do so. Then

he went on to argue that witnesses may lie, but facts can not. He

took a peculiar line on this point, referring to the tariff

discussion, and showing that the Republicans claimed that the

tariff is a benefit to the country, and that the Democrats claimed

the opposite. "So you see," continued counsel, "much depends upon

the disposition you have when you start to look at facts." He then

read from "Taylor on the Law of Evidence," citing a case in which

Macbeth was quoted to show that the smearing of the daggers was an

intentional effort to create circumstantial evidence against the

innocent. The decision also referred to Joseph's coat of many hues

which was stained by the blood of a kid. All this was done to show

the unreliability of circumstantial evidence. Then Mr. Forrest

turned his attention to the case on trial, referring to the fact

that Klahre had soldered the box that was supposed to contain Dr.

Cronin's clothes, which, he remarked, according to the theory of

the prosecution, was to have been shipped to England and received

by some accomplice in the crime and afterward published to the

world as containing Dr. Cronin's clothes.

"You do not claim that I said that?" asked Judge Longenecker.

"No," replied Mr. Forrest, "but that was your theory and that was

the theory of the whole world. It was not only the State's

Attorney's theory, gentlemen; it was not only the theory of the

press of Chicago; it was the theory of the whole world. The whole

world has learned the proof. These clothes were never in that box.

You have since seen that the clothes that these gentlemen assure

had been sent by Martin Burke to England in that box were never

shipped over the sea. The box was never intended for an alleged

accomplice. It was never intended to contain the corpse of Dr.

Cronin. In spite of all their reasoning and of all the inferences

that they drew, by chance a workman in a sewer in the town of Lake

View turned up Dr. Cronin's clothes, which, instead of being in

England in a tin box, were in a valise buried in a sewer in the

town of Lake View.

"In all seriousness I will ask you two questions: suppose the

cleaning of that sewer had not occurred until after this trial.

Don't you know that in every speech of these distinguished orators

they would have urged that Martin Burke was guilty because he sent

Dr. Cronin's clothes over the sea? If that argument had been made

to me, and these clothes had not been discovered would not I have

given it weight? Can not you learn from that fact some lessons? You

can learn that these gentlemen for the State are no safer guides

than we are. You can learn that circumstantial evidence can lie and

mislead, and although the defendant may not be able to disprove

what they prove, as they say, it does not follow that the

defendants are guilty."

DIFFICULT PART OF THE DEFENSE.

"You see the difficulty that the defense is in when we have to

prove a negative. How could we prove that the clothes were not over

the sea if accident had not turned them up in the sewer in Lake

View? You see the danger of assuming to be true what we can not

disprove. You see the unreliability of circumstantial evidence. You

see the difficulty we have in proving a negative. Suppose that one

of you were on trial, and suppose that the State's Attorney could

introduce a witness to swear he saw you burning a deed or will, and

suppose in the middle of the trial the deed should be produced in

all its entirety, how rejoiced you would be. So rejoiced were we,

and so rejoiced was the soul of Martin Burke, so gladdened was my

soul, when the clothes were found in the North Town; call it fate,

call it blind chance, call it an overruling Providence, call it

what you will, it did for Martin Burke what his counsel and all the

witnesses in the world could never have done. Suppose that the

truth had not been disclosed. Suppose that the clothes had not been

found; suppose that the argument had been made by these

gentlemen--and what an argument they would have made in the form of

a narrative!--describing how the clothes crossed the stormy sea,

describing the ship containing this guilty secret. They could have

speculated about what was to be done over there, and how it was to

be done. Suppose they had done that; suppose that you had believed

it; suppose you had drawn the conclusion that they urged you to

draw in their opening, and that they would have urged you to draw

in their closing. Suppose you had imposed the death penalty on

Martin Burke; suppose the death penalty had been executed, and then

the proof should have been discovered that the clothes were in the

North Town sewer, what justification could you have made to the

people of the State of Illinois? What justification could you have

made in your prayers to your God? What justification could you have

made in the forum of your own consciences to yourselves?

"Facts do lie. Now, by an agreement between this court and counsel

for the defendant, I am not to speak of the Camp 20 conspiracy; but

if that agreement had not been made, may it please your honor, I

would not have spoken of the Camp 20 conspiracy, because it is

wholly unnecessary. That has been done ably and exhaustively by the

distinguished gentleman who represents Mr. Beggs. One thing I want

to call your attention to and pass it. These gentleman have said,

'What difference does it make whether that remark of Beggs' that

the committee reported to him alone was made May 3 or May 10.' Why,

it makes all the difference in the world to all the defendants

except Beggs, if you believe it was the appointment of a secret

committee to kill Dr. Cronin. It makes all the difference in the

world to them, and the gentleman that asked the question well knew

it. It was made after May 3, and, therefore, if made, it is

evidence against nobody but Beggs. If it was made before May 3, it

would be evidence against everybody on trial, if you believe that

conspiracy was entered into between them. That is the reason why

these witnesses were prevailed on to swear that it was made May 3

instead of May 10. Every one of them, I believe, swore that it was

May 3, but on cross-examination it turns out that it was May 10.

O'Connor says that it occurred on a certain night when he was

appointed on an auditing committee, and the record shows that that

motion was made on May 10 and that was the only time he was there.

So you see that somebody had a motive to change that from May 10 to

May 3; and the motive was to make it evidence against all instead

of evidence against only one."

Mr. Forrest went on to say that it was a remarkable thing in this

case that the State had just one witness to every matter of

importance. There was just one witness who heard Burke say that

Cronin was a British spy and ought to be killed. They had just one

other witness who heard Coughlin say it was rumored that Cronin was

a spy; then they had just one other witness who heard O'Sullivan

say, on the 22d of May, that Cronin was a spy, and is it not

remarkable that there should be just one person who heard those

gentlemen make such remarks? If they were in the habit of making

those remarks, is it not highly probable that they made them more

than once, and that they made them to more than one person, yet why

was only one produced? It looks as if they were going out into the

highways and by ways of the world, searching for witnesses, and had

found only one.

ATTACKING THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES.

"Now I shall have something to say with respect to the credibility

of the witnesses," he continued, "and shall ask you to draw

inferences you may not be inclined to draw. Probably you will ask

me why a person should commit perjury in a case where a citizen is

on trial for his life. It is difficult to answer, because we do not

know anything of the character of the witnesses or their

associations, and can not find out what their connection is with

other parties. There is also this to be remembered, that men have

whimsical ambition. There are witnesses who desire to be

distinguished, and who know it is always a great matter to know

all about some great crime which has been committed. The man is a

hero for the time being. He is a great man, called upon by

reporters, written up and petted by the police and other persons. I

can not tell what the effect of that would be. They may not

intentionally commit perjury, but at the same time they may be lead

entirely astray from the facts. Counsel regaled the jury with some

of his experience in trying other murder cases by way of explaining

what he meant, and said it is unpopular to testify on behalf of the

defendant in a case like this. The enemies of my client have their

claquers placed about the court, whose duty it is to applaud when

anything comes out favorable to the prosecution.

"I want to know, if your Honor please, if there is any evidence of

any claquers having been placed in this court in this case?" curtly

inquired Mr. Ingham.

"I certainly do not know of any such evidence," replied Judge

McConnell, "and the remark is a highly improper one."

"Claquers were over there in that corner and very frequently

applauded, and that is where the Clan-na-Gaels were congregated,"

angrily retorted Mr. Forrest.

"There are no claquers in this court, and the counsel well knows

it," said Mr. Ingham, sharply.

"I can not have you go into that subject or say any more on that

line, Mr. Forrest," said Judge McConnell.

"Very well," said Mr. Forrest, and he then turned around to the

jury and informed them that his client on a previous occasion was

awarded a new trial by the Supreme Court. Now, I want to call your

attention to certain evidence. There is a peculiar combination of

men and circumstances against my clients, Daniel Coughlin and

Martin Burke. The same remark applies to the other men, but chiefly

to those two. For example, it is worth $100 a week to Patrick Dinan

to have it established that his horse took the Doctor away. He told

you that. He told you that his horse is in the museum, and if that

fact is not established then he will lose $100 a week. Now, what

effect do you suppose that will have upon his zeal in giving

evidence? Again, old man Carlson was in very needy circumstances;

his boy had not been living with his wife for four years. He had

been traveling around the country while his wife was living out as

a servant, and it was obviously to their advantage and pecuniary

interest that the statement should be established that the murder

was committed in that cottage. How that might tend to affect his

testimony and lead him to imagine what never took place, you will

decide. It is an unfortunate circumstance, and may have made him

remember things which never occurred, especially as he is an old

man, and the wall between memory and imagination is nearly broken

down, owing to old age. Of course this is peculiarly unfortunate to

my client.

"Another circumstance. It is proved that the Clan-na-Gael in the

city of Chicago and throughout the United States is divided into

two wings. It is proved that a division exists right through the

country. One wing of this Clan-na-Gael exists in the prisoner's

bar, the other wing sits in the witness seat. How does the wing

that sits in the witness seat conduct itself? It involves the

entire prosecution, and how does it feel toward my client? What do

they say? They say your wing are robbers, betrayed their comrades

to the British and sent them to British prisons by telling the

British government who they were. One of the witnesses, Captain

Thomas O'Connor, told you that he worked every day through May,

June, July and August as a detective in this case for not one

dollar, and you find there are other persons who gave their money

and collected money to aid the prosecution. We have a split in the

Clan-na-Gael throughout this entire country, and it is a matter of

public notoriety and history that 15,000 Clan-na-Gaels were in the

prosecution. Don't you know it is the same old cover of Irish

slander? It is the Irish leaders slandering each other, and they

will slander each other for all eternity. Now what is the effect of

this? On the one side they say your wing is sending out comrades to

British prisons, betraying them to the British government, and they

are prosecuting them, while they say the patriots whom they laud to

the sky are dynamiters who sent dynamite to England to wreck

property and lives. Don't you see that stand out plainly and

distinctly? And not alone has it permeated the prosecution, but if

you believe what Lyman said about it, one of the dynamiters sits

right here at the prosecution table. Do you suppose there is much

difference between the leaders of the two wings? I do not,

generally speaking. One wing charges the other with betraying their

comrades and sending them to British prisons. What is the effect of

it? Every man who has left Ireland for Ireland's good, because the

English police were after him, and every man who came here from

Millbank, came here crying, 'Revenge, revenge, revenge.' And yet

they say they come here and want an American jury to pass upon an

American case, while the motive behind it all is ancient Irish

malice, so far as that thing is concerned. What effect has this had

upon the witnesses? There is not a witness who has been discovered

in this case since the coroner's jury that is not a suspicious

witness. Did you notice the peculiarity of the witnesses? I never

saw such a body of witnesses and you never did. They have eyes like

the eagle; like the owls they can see better and farther by night

than by day. Their hearing is as sensitive as that of the deer that

roams through our northern forests. Their perceptive faculties are

marvelous. Their recollection is beyond conception. They can

remember the slightest circumstance. Every one of them, and it is

an extraordinary thing and quite unnatural, remembers the slightest

circumstance, and each of them does something more remarkable than

the defendants about whom they testify. You will remember that it

is not some public event which occurred and by which they

recollect, but it is evidence of an occurrence which they

themselves give, and such evidence and such memories as they have.

When in the future writers on memory want to give instances of

prodigious feats of memory they will search the record of the

Cronin trial and cite the witnesses for the prosecution.

"There was that man Pulaski, who testified that he sold Burke a

shirt. What an idea! That Burke had only one shirt, and that the

witness did what no other man ever did in his life to a man who

bought a shirt, asked him to take off his coat to measure him.

Burke had an abiding place, and why should he go to that store on

Sunday, the 5th of May, and buy a shirt? If anything of the kind

ever occurred it was two of those dock loafers who work around the

bridge, and who look as if they had only one shirt, and when they

make a change of it they buy a new shirt. Now he says this man came

in and bought a shirt, and that he told him to step back and try on

a nice clean shirt, and if it did not fit to put it right back in

the lot. You know as well as I do that when you go and buy a

ready-made shirt there is only one question asked you--What is the

size of your collar? But that is not all. He remembers another man

who was standing across the street, and that this man went into the

middle of the street and hailed the other man, and then they had a

whispered conversation. Now he tells you that he remembers that the

big man wore a 16-1/2 collar and the little man, who subsequently

came across the street, wore a 15-1/2 collar. He remembers it

exactly, and did not testify before the coroner's inquest. And then

they had a photograph which he identifies, but they never

introduced it in evidence, and I don't know why, but it looked to

me as if a 15-1/2 collar would go only half way round that man's

neck.

"Now comes Klahre, and he says what never occurred. That on the

morning of Sunday, May 5th, he read in one of the papers that Dr.

Cronin was a spy, and had been made away with. As we all know, Mrs.

Conklin testified that not one word was said about it until 12

o'clock Sunday, but they had to get it in quick, because Burke was

out of town on the 8th and 9th. He says that on Monday morning

Martin Burke came into his place with a box, a tin box, with a rope

around it. The expressman brought in the box, which weighed about

fifty pounds, and put it down, and we may rightly call this the box

trick. Klahre said he was going to cut the rope, when Burke called

out: 'Hold on; don't you cut that rope.' It would not do for him to

peep into that box, because he might have seen Dr. Cronin's

clothes, and then if he had, and it had turned out subsequently

that the clothes were found in the sewer, it might have been shown

that he told a fib. But he asked Martin Burke one question, 'What

do you think of Cronin's disappearance?' He tells you that Burke

said, 'He is a British spy, and ought to be killed.' So the great

mystery has been solved. He further says that neither he nor Burke

said another word in an hour and a half. The first man that came

there told Klahre just what he wanted to know, and you will

remember that they asked every man they wanted to impeach, 'Didn't

you say Cronin was British spy and ought to have been killed?' Now,

some one made that to order."

DRIVER SWANSON'S STORY.

"Now take Swanson. By the way, do you remember that when Captain

Schuettler, the police officer who spoke to nearly every witness

since the coroner's inquest, was on the stand, it turned out that

every time he struck a witness from Clark street to Lake View the

man was either a German or a Swede? You would not expect a German

detective to find an American, nor would you expect a German

detective to find an Irishman. Why I can not tell you, but that is

a fact. Now, Swanson gave his testimony. Two of my witnesses go to

a livery stable and get a carriage. The carriage was got to go to

Fleming's opening on West Van Buren street, and Fleming was a

cousin of William Coughlin. The carriage comes to William

Coughlin's saloon, but Coughlin, the very person interested in

going to the opening, is the very person, according to his

testimony, who did not go. The Swede remembers every street he

drove through, every place he stopped, and every cobblestone he

drove over, and yet they tell you that although it's a large

establishment their men did not wear a uniform or livery until

after the 10th of May. The man says he had a tall hat, a cut-away

coat, his pantaloons did not come up under his vest, and yet he was

seen driving through the streets at 12 o'clock at night."

"O'Sullivan watered his garden on that day, too," dryly remarked

the State's Attorney.

"Yes, and if it had been your witness he would have told you what

flower it was he watered, what its color was and just how long it

had been growing, in every detail," said Mr. Forrest.

The counsel then went on to give some of his college experience

where a professor told him the great argument of the truth of the

gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was that each one of them

differed in the circumstantial details of each transaction but all

agreed in the essentials of every transaction. "That is the

argument which can not be answered, whereas if they had agreed in

all the details, the argument would be conspiracy, collusion and

fraud."

RIDICULING THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES.

Counsel then criticised the testimony given by Carberry, whom he

designated as the impecunious and modest man, and who fixes the

night of May 4th by his giving a large order to his grocery, and

then considered what he was pleased to call the remarkable story

given by Dinan and his wife and Moreland regarding the horse and

the buggy which it was alleged the Doctor was driven away in. He

remarked that the horse left the stable at 7:30, not at 7:20, as

had been testified to, and then proceeded to review Mrs. Conklin's

identification of the horse and buggy. He ridiculed the testimony

of the witnesses who were able to say that there was a dim light in

one room of Mrs. Conklin's house and a bright light in the other,

and argued that because they all agreed on that point, therefore

there was something suspicious about that testimony. "She says she

observed more about that horse, with a mosquito screen behind her

and an electric light in front of her, than the owner of the horse,

who has had it for seven years. Why, if you sent a veterinary

surgeon to look at that horse, he could not, after looking over the

horse, give you a more exact description of its peculiarities than

Mrs. Conklin learned through that screen.

"Now comes the knife transaction. Mr. Flynn appears. Mr. Flynn is a

remarkable policeman. See if he did not do a more remarkable thing

than Dan Coughlin did. He is ordered to arrest Coughlin, and he

takes from his pocket a revolver and two knives--two knives not

worth 10 cents, both of them. He takes the two knives to his desk

at the Central Station and locks them up, and then it occurs to him

that they will not be safe there and he puts them in the Fidelity

deposit vault, when right beneath him on the floor below is the

custodian of property taken from prisoners with a vault having a

combination lock. Did you ever hear of a policeman taking a

revolver and two old knives worth 10 cents to the Fidelity Bank

because he was responsible for the property? He never says a word

about it until last Monday, and he shows them to Conklin. And,

mirabile dictu!--he says he carried those knives for two years; one

of them he found on the street: he put one on the mantel, and the

Doctor carried one of them in his vest and one in his pants. He

just knew exactly where the Doctor carried these knives. If you

have two knives you do not trouble yourselves about where you carry

them; but Conklin knew that the Doctor had one knife in his vest

and the other in his pants. Don't you see what remarkable feats

they perform?

"Now, Neiman is a saloon-keeper, and a party happens to go to his

place. His attention is called to it three months afterward, and he

can remember that three people came in to get a glass of wine, and

he can tell you that one of the men wore a Prince Albert coat. It

never occurred to anybody that Dan Coughlin and Kunze were in that

saloon until a week before Neiman testified, and then Dan Coughlin

was pointed out to him by a detective. Don't you notice the urgency

there was how to get him to express an opinion? Now, if witnesses

were urged here, what do you suppose was urged upon them outside?

Next comes the man Mertes. Owls can see by night, and he says he

saw these men enter the cottage and then tells you all about it.

Mrs. Hoertel has a remarkable memory. She is in the habit of going

out to find her husband who is drunk, and knew certain saloons that

he frequented. It was no unusual thing for her to find her husband,

but on this night she knows just what streets she went along and

just where she turned the corners. She is searching for her

husband, and she goes to a saloon, does not see him there, but she

looks at the clock and sees that it was exactly eight o'clock, and

she will never forget the circumstance that it was exactly eight

o'clock. She has got to remember that it was eight o'clock or she

will run afoul of Mertes, and they both remember the same thing.

She says she saw him enter the cottage; she hears the blows and

hears the cries of 'God!' and 'Jesus!' and hears the dying moan.

And yet she never says a word to any body. She is locked out and

sits on the steps all night, and she goes to her husband's partner,

with whom she is apparently on good terms, and does not tell her

story."

EXPERTS ON THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

"Now, we go to their experts on the cause of death. How can they

tell the cause of death? I have heard of men giving extraordinary

opinions, but their experts can tell you what killed the man, and

still they can not find any evidence of it. If the public

prosecutor had put in his indictment 'cause of death unknown,' it

would not have been necessary for them to say he died from some

kind of violence, but the jury is prejudiced against these men

because they said the death is due to that particular thing."

Mr. Forrest went on to review the testimony of the experts as to

the hair and blood, and ridiculed the testimony of Professor Tolman

in regard to his microscopical examinations of what he called

lanugo. He said, "don't you see the Clan-na-Gaels at work? Let the

two wings of the Clan-na-Gaels alone and they will make a laughing

stock of American juries. You and I have got to stand between them.

Everything that they introduced respecting the hair was introduced

for the purpose of misleading you. The testimony of Tolman was

introduced to show by the diameters of hairs that were alike that

they were Dr. Cronin's hair, so that you should not be mislead. 'A

little learning is a dangerous thing.' A great scientist can take

an Irish setter and get two locks of hair from him and examine

them; the hairs are of the same diameter; can he swear that they

came from the same dog or no? The hairs of dogs are alike, and

human hair is as much alike as the hair of horses or of sheep is

alike. Only think of taking a bit of wool from one sheep and

comparing it with the wool of another sheep to see if they came

from the same sheep! We are like the animals in structure: our

bones are alike, our hearts are alike, our viscera are alike; there

is no material difference, and it is just as impossible to tell

whether two locks came from the same human head as it is to tell

whether wisps of hair came from the same horse's tail."

CAUSE OF DR. CRONIN'S DEATH.

At the opening of the afternoon session, Mr. Forrest began the

discussion of the cause of death. "It is said by the learned

gentlemen who represent the people, that our defense on that

question is technical, but I deny it, and I will satisfy you that I

am right and that it is a substantial defense. They will tell you

it shows the weakness of our case. Gentlemen, I am engaged in

defending the lives of these men, and I will avail myself of any

technicalities and of any and every question in order to perform my

duty. I will show you that it is not technical, and for this

reason. They can try us again, they can indict us for causing death

by hanging, by suffocation, by apoplexy, and also by causes

unknown, and you are asked to convict under this indictment to

repair the blunder of the State's Attorney. This is a very simple

proposition of law. If I charge you with stealing my money I must

prove you stole my money, and it will not do to show that you stole

my potatoes; but if you are again indicted for stealing my potatoes

you can only plead you didn't steal my money. Suppose the body was

burned after a man was poisoned, would you be able to prove that he

was poisoned? No, but you would have to charge in your indictment

that he died from causes unknown. It will not do to simply prove

that this man, Dr. Cronin, died from violence; that is not the

question. The indictment charges death from wounds on the head,

face and body. There is no evidence of any wound on the body, so

that is excluded, and you are reduced to the supposition of wounds

on the head and face. It is not a technical defense, as I say,

because an acquittal on this indictment does not prevent their

being tried a half a dozen times under different issues. I will now

refer to the testimony of Dr. Egbert. In his examination, which I

will read to you, he describes the wounds on the head, but

distinctly and emphatically says that he can not say whether the

arteries were cut. The counsel for the State very adroitly put

their questions as to whether the arteries were involved, and he

said they were. He meant that the arteries were in that region.

However, Dr. Egbert testifies that the man did not die from

hemorrhage. Dr. Perkins next comes on the stand, and tells you that

the man died of concussion or contusion of the brain. There was no

evidence of it, because the brain was too decomposed, but he knows

and is perfectly satisfied that that was the cause of death. Dr.

Egbert could not, by any possibility, assign the cause of death,

owing to the decomposition which had taken place, nor could he tell

whether those wounds were made before or after death. Dr. Perkins

says the same thing, and Dr. Moyer says the same. If they do not

know, how do you know? Some of you told me your minds were made up,

but by the living God you must try us according to the law. The

burden of proof is on them and they must prove the cause of death,

and how do you know it? Will you guess at it? Do you propose to

guess my clients guilty and then hang them?"

TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS.

Mr. Forrest read from the testimony of medical men at some length

to show that they could not assign the cause of death, and asserted

that the State had compelled its witnesses to stretch their

consciences and to testify to what were not the facts, because of

the State's Attorney's blunder in not putting into the indictment

"cause of death unknown."

"Are you reading that testimony of Dr. Perkins correctly?" inquired

Mr. Hynes. "You are putting as an answer and reading to the jury as

an answer of the Doctor's what in reality was a question of your

own."

"Well, possibly I did," responded Mr. Forrest, who went on reading

testimony. His misquotation of the testimony in that case, however,

induced the State's Counsel to keep a very sharp eye on the

evidence he quoted. Mr. Forrest criticised at some length the

testimony given by Dr. Perkins, and argued that if it would not be

possible to tell whether the victim died from concussion or

contusion of the brain without a microscopical examination, it was

a remarkable thing that no such examination had been made. It was

evident from the testimony that some one was straining his

conscience as far as he dared, and it was also in proof that it

would have been impossible to have told even by a microscopical

examination of the brain whether death resulted from concussion or

contusion. However, if it could, they did not do it. Yet the

attorneys for the State will ask you to say that this matter is

satisfactorily proved; that you know what the cause of death was,

no matter whether you do or not, and, notwithstanding all the

doctors say, it was impossible to say what was the cause of death.

The State says to you, 'We want these men convicted,' but I say to

you, 'Do your duty.' The State says to you, 'Violate your oaths and

convict them now,' and that doctrine is preached by the public

prosecutor in a community where, above all things, the people

should be taught respect for the administration of the law. Counsel

then passed to an examination of the testimony given by Dr. Moore.

He argued that even Dr. Moore could not assign any cause of death,

and then made a frantic appeal to the jury, inquiring, 'Are you

prejudiced against these men?' If the jury wants an excuse, those

doctors say, we will throw you one. They seem to say we know what

you think; we know what you want to do and what you are ready to

do, and all that is needed is for us to throw out a suspicion.

DR. MOORE'S TESTIMONY RECALLED.

"Dr. Moore said Dr. Cronin did not die from blood letting, because

he died before he could have bled to death," remarked Mr. Hynes.

"It is just as well that you should quote that to the jury."

"That doesn't matter," roared Mr. Forrest. "Moore says that he

might have died and possibly would have died from concussion or

contusion of the brain, but he does not dare say that he did die

from it. He throws no more light on the cause of death than did the

others. His evidence was the most extraordinary, and the conclusion

he arrived at as to why there was contusion of the brain was also

most extraordinary, and although it must be a very tiresome

proceeding to you, gentlemen, I am compelled to comment upon it and

go into it at some length."

Counsel then read copious extracts from the testimony of Dr. Moore,

remarking that that doctor reminded him of a celebrated man named

Bogardus, who had written a book upon the theory that all disease

could be cured by blood-letting and hot water. "He practiced his

theory, but by and by his patients began to die, and wherever he

went the undertaker followed. His friends complained to him and

said: 'You had better give up your theory.' 'Can't give it up,'

said the doctor. 'Don't care how many die; I have written a book

and have a theory, and must sustain it.' So with the indictment of

the State's Attorney. 'I have written an indictment; it is my

theory and has got to be sustained, right or wrong, in spite of the

law and evidence, and you give me a jury which is excited and I

will get some one to swear to something, and that will be enough.

My theory must be sustained.' Are you gentleman ready to violate

your oaths by sustaining it?"

NO PROOF OF THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

"We have in evidence that the brain was disintegrated. 'I do not

find,' said the doctor, 'any indication of brain disease, because

the brain was too far disintegrated.' He did find concussion and

contusion of the brain, yet there was no evidence of that. If the

brain was so far disintegrated that they could not tell one thing,

how could they tell the other? Of course he could not tell whether

he died of brain disease, yet he could, although there was no

evidence, swear that the man died of concussion of the brain. I

asked him whether he could discover brain diseases by the naked

eye, and he said no, that it would require microscopical

examination, and yet he did not make the examination required. Dr.

Andrews says you can not possibly tell the cause of death from that

post-mortem examination, and that is the position that all the

other doctors occupy in the case. I say to you, therefore, that the

indictment should have read for causing his death in an unknown

way, and then men would not have had to strain their consciences

and could have answered the question intelligently. Are we not to

have conscience in this matter at all? The law should be executed

in this country as it is in England. There is no place in the world

where there is so much respect for law as there is there, and there

is no place in the world where they so uniformly execute the strict

letter of the law, no matter what the consequence may be. The

witnesses therefore have disposed of both the internal and external

evidences, and the doctors have told you they can not possibly tell

you what the cause of death was. Now, if the doctors say they can

not, can you? But, says the State's Attorney, you have got to

sustain my theory. Now, I ask you gentlemen, as twelve law-abiding

men, twelve men who look me straight in the face--you twelve men

told me you would try my client according to the law and the

evidence--if the Court tells you the cause of death must be proved

beyond reasonable doubt, I ask you how on your consciences you can

find these prisoners guilty, and even without the testimony of Drs.

Andrews and Moyer? The God's truth is that no man can tell the

cause of death. No man can tell how he was killed, whether the

wounds caused death or whether he died from contusion or concussion

of the brain. There is nothing in the evidence about blood letting,

and there is nothing about concussion or contusion of the brain,

and I ask you to keep to your contracts with the law and with your

God, and to follow it, no matter where it leads you. You and I

would risk our lives for the defense of Illinois if she were in

peril. We are not cowards; we fear neither the hooting of crowds

nor bullets while we are doing our duty. You care nothing for the

mob, nor do I, and Illinois now says to you, do your duty on your

conscience. I demand it of you and you can not give me less. Now,

everything that was put in the notes was put in the hypothetical

question which we submitted to our medical men, and Drs. Moyer,

Andrews and Curtis tell you distinctly that it is impossible, from

the description of the wounds and the notes taken at the

post-mortem, to tell what the man died of. They corroborate the

other witnesses that the cause of death was uncertain. How much

evidence do you want? There is not only a reasonable doubt, but we

have proved beyond possibility of doubt that you can not tell the

cause of death. Now, gentlemen, your duties are important, and you

will be required to carry them out.

"You will remember that early in the case the State's Attorney said

dates are important, and they are of vital importance. Dr. Moore

closed the evidence as to the cause of death on October 26th, and

he and the other physicians all swear that you can not tell whether

the wounds were ante or post mortem. Now what do they do? Instead

of going to Dr. Fenger or other prominent medical men and asking

their opinion, what do they do? They know that if they ask the

opinion of eminent medical men they might be told that the boys had

made a mistake, and, therefore, they say we represent the people of

the State of Illinois; we represent the right wing of the

Clan-na-Gael and we will show you a trick. You remember that on

October 31st they discovered this witness, Mrs. Hoertel, who

testified that the wounds were committed before death. They could

not get any one to swear that the doctors were right, but they had

got their theory that it took place in the Carlson cottage; they

have got their men from Millbank prison, they have the Clan-na-Gael

back of them and they say 'We will show you something.' Now, you

see why we proved that we did not get that name of Mrs. Hoertel

before the 31st of October. Mr. Clan-na-Gael, you may be cunning,

but you are tracked into your den at last. I told you to look out

for the Clan-na-Gael. Don't you see how important it was? I can not

tell you whether those wounds were inflicted before or after death;

the doctors can not tell you. The State well knows that it can not

get any such evidence from any doctors, and therefore they say we

will show you that he was murdered. On October 26th they sent out

their German spies, or I will apologize for that and say

detectives. Schuettler goes out, and Hoefig goes out, and a lot of

others, and they look into the highways, byways and hedges of the

city, and finally they find a woman who can swear that she saw the

Doctor enter the cottage, heard the blows inflicted, heard him cry,

'Oh, God,' 'Oh, Jesus,' and then heard the dying moans. I believe

you can talk about this murder being awful, you can say that we did

not denounce the Doctor's murder, but that has been done

sufficiently all over the world, and the whole world has fixed the

responsibility for it on the head of my client, but I will tell you

right here in your court-house, in the name of the law and justice,

they would commit a legal murder to sustain a theory and a blunder.

The whole thing was made necessary by the original blunder. Dates

are of importance.

"Now, gentlemen, that is all I have got to say about the cause of

death. Did I not tell you that those witnesses were remarkable

witnesses? They turned up just at a good time, and the State's

Attorney calls it providence. It seems to me that some men can

appeal to God by day and rely upon the devil by night as easily and

as unceremoniously as Mansfield can act the double part in 'Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.'"

"Let us talk common sense. You and I are citizens of Illinois. We

are responsible for the good name and honor of Illinois or her

shame. We know our families are here, and we are ready to stand up

for her and give our lives for her if necessary. We intend to

uphold the law, but you can not uphold the law by any such

testimony as has been introduced in this case. You laugh at my

catch-basin, some of you; I did not know what they wished these

catch-basins might be, and you don't know. They never examined into

that, and yet it is highly probable that from the condition that

body was in, from its position, with the head being down and the

feet up, and from the evidence of the men who told you that when

they attempted to pull the body up it slipped back, it is

physically possible that those very wounds on the scalp might have

been made while pulling the body out. If there had been a tin

oyster can or anything like that at the bottom of the catch-basin

when the body slipped back, it would have made just such wounds,

and in that case, or even if they were made by the bricks and hard

mortar, the skull would not have been scratched, and the skull was

not scratched."

Mr. Forrest then undertook to trace the course of the wagon from

the cottage to where the trunk was found, and said the men must

have gone over ten miles instead of going about two and a half

miles, in order that the wagon must be brought to the Carlson

cottage. Unless that could have been established in some way, one

link in the chain of evidence would be gone. The State said they

wanted to get on paved streets, yet as a matter of fact they went

on unpaved streets. After spending some considerable time in going

over the route alleged to have been taken by the wagon with the

trunk, Mr. Forrest had the trunk brought in and proceeded to point

out to the jury the defects in regard to the State's evidence in

regard to that trunk. He alleged that all the blood stains could be

made with a half a pint of blood judiciously distributed; that the

marks on the lock showed that it had been pried off from the

outside, and urged upon the jury that it would have been impossible

for the three men to have kicked open the trunk from the rear in

order to dump the body into the catch-basin without bending the

hasp in front. The key, he insisted, was found by a trunk-maker,

and that the whole thing was a fabrication by men who had been

employed to get up a plausible story.

THINKS THE EVIDENCE WAS MANUFACTURED.

"And bear in mind, gentleman, that the men who had control of the

lock, the Lake View men, were in the house--were in the Carlson

cottage before Lorch. Schuettler enters the house, examines it and

leaves it; Wing enters there, 'examines' it and leaves it, and then

they send Lorch there, and they tell him to look about the cottage.

Gentlemen, mark you, they tell him to look, and there right in the

middle of the cottage, under some kind of furniture, they find a

key. Now he tries to correct himself; he sees it is a most

important matter; he tries to correct himself as to dates. Now

then, gentlemen, there was a pot of paint in the house, and the

paint is daubed on two or three inches thick. There is the paint; a

whole pot of it right in the house. The pot of paint in the house

of course accounts for the daubing on the floor; that is why it was

put there.

"Then we have the trunk question; the key must be lost in order to

account for the breaking open of the trunk. But, gentlemen, that

trunk might easily have been broken open by simply throwing it down

on the sidewalk, without any force at all, and it would have broken

open of itself without being kicked open at all. But, gentlemen,

for finding the key which fits the lock on the trunk, that,

gentlemen, may account for the fact that the top of the trunk was

broken off. Mr. Foster alluded to the confused way in which Officer

Lorch fixes his dates as to the finding of the key, and to the fact

that while Lorch could tell what he was doing on half a dozen days

on both sides of May 25th, he could not tell what he was doing on

May 25th. Now, as regards the paint upon this key. Just take a look

at it, examine both sides of it, and you will see from the even

edges of the paint that it was held by one end and the other dipped

in. This side is rubbed off a little, you see, but it is evident it

was dipped in. Dipped in, gentlemen. Well, did the police do it? I

don't know, you don't know. But there is one circumstance that can

not fail to strike you forcibly, namely, that the lid was

evidently broken off from behind while the hasp and lock remain

intact. This is evidence which in itself contradicts the theory of

the State that the top of the trunk was torn off in order to get

the body out of it. Gentlemen, this is an attempt to counterfeit

the truth, but it is hard to counterfeit truth. God Almighty has so

made it that it is hard to counterfeit it. You can not sink the

truth. You can not cover it up. It is like a buoy in the water. It

may be sunk under the surf ace for a short time, but when you come

to stir the water by cross-examination, it will surely come to the

surface again. It is hard to counterfeit the truth."

PERHAPS THE POLICE KILLED CRONIN.

"If Dr. Cronin was killed in there, in that cottage, and his body

placed in the trunk, and if his murderers afterward painted that

floor, they must have found that key there. They must have known

that the key was lost; they must have been desirous of finding it,

and if they had painted that floor, and the key was lying there,

they must have found it. They would have looked pretty carefully

for it and yet, lo and behold! there, right in the middle of the

floor, it is found by Officer Lorch. But remember Schuettler had

been there, Wing had been there, the whole Carlson family had been

there, from the 21st to the 24th of May, three whole days before

Lorch found it. Do you think that the Carlson family went around

there and never touched any thing? I don't know; I hardly think you

do. Now, right in the middle of the floor, under a washstand or

some other piece of furniture, the key was found, and of all the

men in the world to find it who should it be but an officer who had

been a trunkmaker who found it. Lorch, whose business is

trunkmaking, was the man who found it. He had worked in a trunk

factory, and when he found the key, as he says, he worked for some

time in order to get it to fit. Of course a carpenter might have

found it, a molder might have found it, a stone mason might have

found it; but of all the suspicious circumstances in the world, the

most suspicious in connection with the finding of this key was the

fact that it was found by a trunkmaker."

DID NOT TRACE THE WAGON.

Mr. Forrest alluded to the fact that nobody from the State had

attempted to trace the wagon from the cottage, and insinuated that

the reason that they had left this phase of the case alone was

because the route of the wagon described by the witnesses for the

State did not correspond with any rational idea of what the route

would be of persons driving from the cottage to the place where the

body was finally disposed of. Mr. Forrest alluded to the testimony

of the expressman Mortensen, and referred sneeringly to his

remarkable memory by which he was enabled to remember every article

of furniture he hauled to the Carlson cottage from the Clark street

flat, although there was nothing in the particular incident to

distinguish it from others of its kind. Mortensen had been in the

custody of the police, ever since the coroner's inquest, until he

took the witness stand. He did not identify the trunk as the one he

hauled, but said it was one just like it. He pretended to identify

the other articles of furniture. It was plain he was drilled on

this point, and, great God! if they drilled the witnesses on minor

points, how did they know but they drilled them on more important

things! He drew attention to the fact that neither of the Carlsons

had said a word about seeing a trunk in the Carlson cottage at the

coroner's inquest, but this was before the Clan-na-Gael had taken

charge of this case, for when the trial came on, old Carlson was

ready to swear that he had gone out expressly one night in April or

March to see the trunk, and he peeped in through the window for

that purpose, and then he sees the trunk and nothing else. This

testimony came just before the mimic from Millbank prison came upon

the stand and gave an exhibition of his powers of mimicry in a case

in which a man was on trial for his life. "Well, did the judge in

the English court say you were a dangerous man?" Mr. Clancy was

asked, and he says, "Oh, yes, but it was only because I was a

Fenian. That's all; and they tried to arrest me for being a Fenian,

and I drew out my revolver and I deliberately tried to murder them

(two policemen)." "That's nothing, gentlemen of the jury; this

makes him a hero; this is one of the patriots who have been

betrayed and sent behind British prison bars; this man who tried to

murder two English policemen in the execution of their duty is one

of the patriots of Irish patriots. So says your public prosecutor.

Well, but the judge said he was a dangerous man, and he served out

his fourteen years in Millbank prison. And now he comes here,

having become a great mimic, a wonderful actor, and coolly and

deliberately tries to mimic the life of poor Pat O'Sullivan away."

At this point, on the suggestion of Mr. Forrest, a recess was

taken.

Before the jury retired, Juror Culver expressed a desire to take

the map of Lake View introduced in evidence along with him. Mr.

Forrest said he could have it, but Bailiff Santa interfered and

said it could not be done without the sanction of the Court. Mr.

Forrest turned to the judge and said as neither the State nor the

defense had any objection to the jury having the map he thought it

might be allowed. Judge McConnell said the jury could have the map

but not at this particular time.

Mr. Forrest resumed his argument on the following day, Tuesday,

speaking for five hours. He dwelt at length on the dry subject of

blood corpuscles, and insisted that Drs. Belfield, Tolman and

Haines had been mistaken in their testimony. The failure of the

State to put in evidence the letter sent to the Carlsons from

Hammond, Ind., informing them that the cottage was no longer needed

by the murderous tenants, was due, so counsel argued, to the fact

that it was afraid the defense would prove it was not in Martin

Burke's handwriting. He argued at length, with the apparent purpose

of convincing the jury, that it was a huge conspiracy planned to

strangle his clients; that the witnesses for the State were hired

perjurers, and that the lawyers were the tools of a body of men who

were seeking to control an organization for political purposes, and

concluded his third day's talk by telling with dramatic effect a

story about the fate of a pleasure-seeker who innocently, in

exploring the base of a huge cliff in Scotland, ran upon the cave

of a band of smugglers. The man peered into the cave. The smugglers

detected him, and believing he was a spy captured him and sentenced

him to death. They tumbled him over the brow of the cliff, and his

body was dashed to pieces on the jagged rocks below. A rope was

used in the execution, and on this fact the lawyer laid especial

stress, but just as he was rounding up his brightest and most

luminous period, Judge Longenecker brought him to a dead halt by

asking, in a matter-of-fact tone, what the authorities did to the

man who cut the rope.

The appeal for the prisoners was closed on the following day

(Wednesday, Dec. 11th,) when Mr. Forrest again spoke for five

hours. He went over, in detail, the evidence relating to Dinan's

horse, ridiculing the testimony of Mrs. Conklin and dwelling on the

conversation between Coughlin and Dinan, to show that the former

had given the correct version of it, and that therefore there was a

presumption in favor of his innocence. There was no evidence that

Coughlin had any motive for desiring Cronin's death, and the main

testimony against him was that of thieves and keepers of

disreputable resorts; nor was there any proof that Burke was

connected with the crime. Concluding the most lengthy speech of the

trial, Mr. Forrest said:

FORREST'S PERORATION.

"Now, Gentlemen of the Jury," continued Mr. Forrest, "I want you to

find Daniel Coughlin and Martin Burke not guilty. Why? Because

there is not established in this case a conspiracy in which it is

alleged these men participated. In other words, to save my strength

and not to exhaust your patience, there is nothing proved in this

case beyond reasonable doubt that will connect them or either of

them with the killing of Dr. Cronin. It is not necessary for me to

repeat that. Now, then, I ask you to acquit them and when I ask you

to acquit them, I ask you simply to do your duty--nothing more.

Nothing has been left undone against them that could have been

done. The State has had several able lawyers, and they have

insulted every witness called for the defense. Every man called for

the defense has been called a murderer or a sympathizer with

murder. Everything has been done to insult and break down witnesses

for the defense. Everything that intimidation in the court-room and

out of it could do has been done in behalf of the State; everything

that insinuation could do, has been done on the part of the State.

The Court has given them the widest range of cross-examination, so

there can't be any fault found in that respect. All the evidence

which they offered was admitted by the court. We have the State's

Attorney's forces, and the entire police force of Chicago. They

have talked about the police force betraying them. I saw no

evidence of it. Everything that one wing of the Clan-na-Gael could

do has been done. In addition to the State's Attorney, they have

had other distinguished orators--two of the greatest criminal

lawyers of modern times, Luther Laflin Mills and George Ingham,

whose business, like mine, is the pleading of criminal law; Mr.

Hynes, a great lawyer, a great cross-examiner, one of the most

brilliant orators of the Chicago bar, a man whom one of the largest

corporations in Chicago relies upon to wring verdicts from juries

in most desperate cases. He, too, has done all that he could on

behalf of the State. Everything that could be done has been done to

prove this charge, so that, gentlemen of the jury, you can say to

your neighbors, you can say to your social worlds, you can say to

your own consciences that no fault is to be found with the State;

everything has been done that could be done, but there was a

reasonable doubt as to the guilt of those men, and I found them not

guilty for that reason. Remember, the State's Attorney has solemnly

told you that the world has confidence in you, that he has

confidence in you, that the Judge has confidence in you, and that

whatever verdict you render will satisfy him, will satisfy the

community, will satisfy the world, because the community has

implicit and unlimited confidence in your honor and intelligence.

This, gentlemen, I say on behalf of Martin Burke and Daniel

Coughlin, in confiding their cases to your hands. No peroration

have I, but simply one word will I give. The word I give is

'duty'--duty to Illinois, duty to your God, duty to yourselves. 'To

thine own self be true, and it must follow as the day the night

thou canst not then be false to any man.'"

* * * * *

LONGENECKER'S CLOSING.

"If the Court please and Gentlemen of the Jury, I regret to

announce that Mr. Mills is sick and not able to close this case.

While I know you, gentlemen of the jury, are disappointed, while I

am profoundly disappointed, yet no one is more disappointed than

Mr. Mills himself. No one regrets it any more than the gentleman

who was to address you himself. I left him yesterday evening at 7

o'clock, and it was determined there and then by his physician that

it would not be safe for him to attempt to close this case.

"When I was struggling along here in the city of Chicago years ago,

trying to earn an honest living in my profession, Mr. Mills called

me into his office and said: 'Longenecker, I would like to have you

as one of my assistants in the State's Attorney's office.' I said:

'Very well, I will be very glad to come into your office.' And when

this case arose, and I felt the great responsibility that rested

upon me as State's Attorney, I thought I would be doing the people

a good service in requesting Mr. Mills to close the argument in

this case. And at my earnest solicitation he agreed to do so. But

it has been willed otherwise, and he is not here to address you.

"Now, I promise you, gentlemen, that I shall not talk to you long.

I make that promise to you now. I know how tired you are, having

been locked up so long away from your families, and it would be

unreasonable, even if I could, to attempt to make a long speech in

reference to this case. And if I do not cover all the points made

in the case, if I do not go into details, I think you will all give

me indulgence, for I do not want to impose upon your good nature

and upon you as jurors any longer.

"We are not in this case for the first time after the opening with

the theory of the defense. In most all murder cases, in most all

important trials, when the State, or the people represented by the

State's Attorney, gives an outline of the prosecution's side, the

defendants' attorney arises and gives to the jury their defense. If

not at the opening, then after the evidence is closed for the

prosecution; then they arise and tell us how they are going to

meet this evidence. That was not done. So that it remained until

the last. When counsel for the defendants arose to address you in a

three days' argument, for the first time, you, as jurymen, and we,

as representatives of the people, were notified of the theory of

the defense; that is, that there was a great conspiracy on the part

of the people; that there was a conspiracy to hang innocent men; a

conspiracy to murder under the guise of the law, and the gentleman

was so earnest in that statement that he carried it all through his

argument to the jury. He argued that proposition with the same

force that he did anything else that he talked about in the case.

Now gentlemen, if that is your notion of this case, if you believe

there is a conspiracy to murder Martin Burke, and those other men

on trial, then you ought to acquit, and you ought to recommend to

His Honor that the counsel representing the people of this great

State should be indicted and tried for murder. If I, as a

representative of the people, am guilty of coaching evidence

against Martin Burke and those other men on trial, I ought not to

have a trial, but ought to be taken by the citizens of your State

and hanged without court or jury. Do you believe, gentlemen, that

there is a conspiracy here to convict innocent men? Do you believe

that these men sitting by my side have crowded me out of my office

and concocted a conspiracy against innocent men, and called in a

jury of twelve men to assist them? You do not believe that they are

guilty of it. If they were guilty of if, do you suppose that they

could do it without my knowing it? If they did it without my

knowing it or finding it out, then I am unworthy of the position,

and should be prosecuted for criminal negligence and convicted.

Why, the gentleman tells you that it is done by the other branch of

the Clan-na-Gaels, and they are backing the prosecution; that as

soon as it gets out of the hands of the Coroner they bring up

witness after witness to swear falsehoods before you, and he states

it in that way.

[Illustration: LUTHER LAFLIN MILLS, ONE OF COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION.]

"Every Clan-na-Gael witness that we have called to the stand

belonged to the triangle, part of the Clan-na-Gael organization,

Camp 96, from which Dr. Cronin left (I put it in that way). The

learned counsel for an hour talked about his organizing an

opposition camp, calling it 96, the same as old 96; Columbus Club

instead of Columbia Club. The whole of that camp stood by the

triangle; the very men who came here to testify from the camp were

in sympathy with the triangle and believed that they were right

until within the last year or so. We go right into their own camp,

among their own friends, and we get the truth from men who believed

that Dr. Cronin was not right in making the charges against the

triangle, and yet it was fully believed that it was the other

faction. It is true that P. McGarry did belong to an opposing camp,

but Thomas O'Connor, John F. O'Connor, Henry Owen O'Connor, John

Collins--the whole of them, were members of Camp 20, that we

produced here as witnesses. Are they in a conspiracy with the other

associates, the members of the same camp as John F. Beggs, Daniel

Coughlin and Martin Burke? Why, they come as brothers from the same

camp so that won't do to charge it in that way. Now, gentlemen, the

only reason of that is to show you how far men will go in trying to

mislead a jury.

"Do you believe that I could have it in my heart to put a witness

on the stand that I did not believe, to swear the life away of

these men. If you do, recommend to His Honor that I be prosecuted

for the crime. Gentlemen, I would rather have my arms torn from my

body than to be guilty of such a crime as that.'

Mr. Forrest--"We believe that."

Judge Longenecker--"Yes, you must believe it. And yet one of your

lawyers wants you to believe that I was so ignorant, that I was so

unworthy of my position, that I was so incompetent as to sit here

like a mummy and let these men conspire to have a jury hang

innocent men.

"Gentlemen, you don't believe that. You don't believe that that

great big-hearted Irishman sitting there (Mr. Hynes), whose heart

has always gone out for poor humanity, would be guilty of it. Mr.

Foster says that he has known Mr. Ingham, and he knows him to be a

truthful man, a man that is worthy of belief, and for that reason

he says Ingham said nothing against Beggs, because he was such a

straight, truthful man. In that regard that gentleman, that legal

light of the bar, charged me with dishonesty, charged that

big-hearted Irishman with dishonesty.

"Gentlemen, I may be a little disconnected in my argument before

you and if I am, you will pardon me. But I wish to notice Foster's

argument for his client. If there is nothing against John F. Beggs,

I can not see why he said so much. It was understood, I may say,

that Mr. Ingham was not to talk about Camp 20 at all. That is the

truth of the matter. He was not to discuss that proposition. I had

gone over it, as you recollect, I thought I had tired you out by

talking of Camp 20. Mr. Hynes was to take up that, and he did, and

went over the same ground as I had, and I still have to repeat

myself because of this assumed sincerity on the part of Mr. Foster.

"Why this learned counsel should talk a day and a half if there is

nothing against his client, I do not know. Do you wonder at it? Why

is it that a man, whose services are so valuable, who never had

anything but an important case, should talk a day and a half in a

case where there is no evidence against his client, and out of the

day and a half never talk about his client's case, except for about

fifteen minutes, is more than I can understand. Was it because he

was trimmed for a speech? Was it because he had to read the Irish

history that he had copied into his manuscript? Was it because

Foster had to advertise at the expense of his client? or was it

because he thought there was something against his client? You know

how he spread like the waters of the Platte river; you can look at

it and you can say what a mighty river. It is all spread out. It is

true it is all spread out, but there is no depth to it.

"We do not take issue with him on the smoke-stacks of Ireland. We

do take issue with him in reference to Mr. Hynes, and we have given

you our statement in regard to that. We do take issue with him in

regard to everything except in regard to the ability on our side. I

admit that we have ability here on this side helping me. Why should

not the people of the State of Illinois have ability as well as the

defendants? He said I had five assistants, and yet these three

lawyers had to be called in to help me in this case. Has that

anything to do with the case at issue? Since you began this trial

three Grand Juries have been impaneled and discharged. Two other

courts have been constantly in session. Over 300 cases have been

disposed of--I am making a guess of that, averaging it for the

actual three months. Three hundred cases have been disposed of; and

three Grand Juries have been impaneled and discharged since this

case began. Habeas corpuses have been heard; men have been sent to

the penitentiary and others to the bridewell and some to the jail.

And yet he would have you understand that I had five assistants

doing nothing. Now, that is not fair, is it? That is not doing his

client any good; that is not in the case. Suppose it was so, what

has that got to do with the guilt or innocence of Beggs? No matter

whether I had five, six, or a dozen assistants, the question is,

What are the facts? Lawyers or no lawyers, that is what you have to

deal with.

"Mr. Foster argued for an hour about how the Presbyterians had got

away with Swing, and how the Methodists had disposed of Dr. Thomas,

and how the Episcopals had disposed of Dr. Cheney. Didn't he talk a

long time about that? What for? Why did he devote his time to

talking about that? But suppose that the hot-headed Presbyterians

had said, we do not believe that this man ought to be permitted to

live? Suppose that they had ordered a committee of investigation, a

secret committee to investigate Dr. Swing? Suppose that they had

entered into that arrangement, not intending to murder him, but

suppose they did, and suppose you can find no other people on earth

that had a feeling against Dr. Swing but these men who said he was

unworthy to live, and that men said he ought to be killed, and

these men had themselves invited him out? Why, the Presbyterians

would hang for killing him, for carrying out that conspiracy.

Sometimes these conspiracies are brought about by things that ought

not to affect the mind of any man. Now, our theory has been in this

case that there was a conspiracy, whether it originated at the time

of the appointment of the committee, or after its appointment, our

theory is that there was a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin because

they believed he was a spy, and that the men who followed that up

had another object in having him murdered, namely, to prevent him

from going before the honest Irishmen and showing them how they had

been robbed of their funds. That has been our theory. The proof

justifies us in making this statement. Did you ever think since

this trial--have you heard of anybody having any feeling against

Dr. Cronin? You have heard of his belonging to this organization

and that. You have heard of his singing in public; you have heard

of his being here and there, a man liked. Has there been any

evidence of any other person on earth that would be likely to kill

Dr. Cronin? None at all. Where do you go, where do you get the

starting point in this great conspiracy? Where do you find it? You

find it in Camp 20, in Turner Hall? Now, we do not charge that the

entire camp was in it. We do not charge that the membership knew of

the conspiracy, but we do charge that it started there among these

parties.

"Foster treats the Beggs-Spellman correspondence as if Beggs was

publishing to the world that he was going to commit murder. Not so.

Our theory is, and it is the correct one, that these letters were

written for the purpose of covering up that which they expected

this committee to do. That is our theory. That is why they were

written. That is why Mr. Beggs said to me when he was brought face

to face with the record that a committee had been appointed, but

does he explain? You can see that it is a blind. You can see why he

flushed these letters in the face of the people; because it was the

work of the conspirators to begin in this line. Nothing had yet

been prepared for the disposition of Cronin. Nothing had been

arranged, but they must make a sort of an investigation in this

way. Talk about reading between the lines? The Lord knows there is

enough in the lines without reading between the lines.

"Recollect that the letter in which he says: 'I hope no trouble

will result,' is one of the links. Let us get it just right, 'I

hope no trouble will result.' On the 18th the flat is rented. And

on the 20th they finish laying the carpet. Now jump on to the 22d,

the next meeting of Camp 20, where these minutes are approved, and

what do you find? On the 22d of February in the line of his

letters, in the line that he hopes that no trouble will result,

what does he do? Pat McGarry read his speech, in which he said that

the man who gave Le Caron his credentials to go into the convention

was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron could pretend to be."

Mr. Donahoe--"You will concede that every Irishman knew who it was

that gave Le Caron his credentials?"

Mr. Longenecker--"I do not know whether they did or not. I presume

they did. Beggs said that they had members who were coming in and

violating the hospitality of that camp. That would have to be

stopped. It was not right. He said that they came in there talking

about Alexander Sullivan, and it was cowardly to talk of a man

behind his back. Why did they not say so to his face? He said

Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in that camp, and he slapped

his breast and says, 'I am one of them.'

"Now, gentlemen, that alone does not amount to so much. Beggs'

letters alone would not amount to so much. The speech alone--story

I mean--the fact of what happened in Camp 20 alone; but when you

take into consideration the manner in which he speaks of the letter

to Spelman--the speeches he makes and the letter on the 22d, when

you bring them all in together, then it does become strong. Now,

gentlemen, I am not going to bother you about reading. I am anxious

that you should not be misled in reference to Beggs. Because, if

Foster is correct--and I know he is--then, if Beggs is guilty, he

is awful guilty. A man who is educated, a man who has practiced

law, a man who ought to be ready to see that the law is executed, a

man who is educated in a profession of this character, is held

accountable for his acts in a higher degree than is the man who

does not know the law. And for less acts he is more responsible. If

this man set the machinery in motion--and his counsel says he is

not a dupe--if he set this terrible conspiracy in motion, then he

becomes the worst of the men on trial. And he is just the character

who would do just the little which would have more effect than if

he stood by in the shoes of Martin Burke or Dan Coughlin. He stands

at the head of the conspiracy. He stood there helping to forge the

first link in this great conspiracy; and I am anxious, gentlemen,

that you do not be misled in reference to John F. Beggs. John F.

Beggs made his record on this chain of evidence the same as Martin

Burke made his record.

"Well, but Mr. Foster says that Beggs is acquainted with Harrison.

He introduced this fact that this second constable introduced him

to Bailey Dawson and Mr. Babcock, and that he only introduced him

for the purpose of what? Of showing his associations. Is that the

reason why he introduced this speech that Beggs had made to

President Harrison? Does that show the associations of every man

who has shaken the President's hand? Does it give him character?

Does it throw open the record? Is it an open book of his character

to go and shake the hand of President Harrison? If that is so,

President Harrison had better stand and shake the hands of men who

are all over this country, and give them characters. If that is

opening up the book of a man, if that gives him a reputation and a

standing when he is charged for cruel murder, why then Mr. Harrison

ought to shake hands with a good many fellows in Chicago. That is

not it. He didn't know what might come. Providence had been causing

the sewer to give up the silent witness. Providence had been giving

up the German woman that heard the last words of the dying man. He

don't know what Providence might do before the case ended, so an

alibi must be proven for Beggs, and when he finds out that he does

not establish an alibi, then he wants you to understand that he was

practicing a fraud on you, and simply introduced it for the purpose

of showing his associations.

"Of course, take a circumstance alone, and it may be weak. But when

it stands in relation to another circumstance in the line of the

object, then it becomes strengthened. And Mr. Forrest will not find

me disputing his propositions of law. Right here let me say that

the Court will give you the law; but do not forget that you are to

try this case on the facts under the law. He may give you fifty

instructions that the law is so and so, and that if the facts are

so and so, apply them under that law and that is so and so. He will

tell you that if from all the circumstances in the case, you have

no reasonable doubt as to the guilt, then you must convict; but,

that if you have a reasonable doubt, then you must acquit. It is

you after all who become the judges of the case. Do not forget the

evidence in the case. The Court does not intend to instruct the

evidence out of your mind in giving you a long chain of

instructions which it is his duty under the law to give. He does

not intend that you shall forget the evidence that is applicable

under that law. For instance, he might give you an instruction, and

it is possible he will, that before you can find the men guilty,

you must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Cronin, if

killed, was killed in the manner and form as charged in the

indictment, and that the cause of death was as charged in the

indictment.

"Well, now, that means you are to decide whether he was killed as

charged in the indictment, not as testified by any particular

doctor on the stand. Why, this counsel undertakes to tell me what

my duty is as State's Attorney. This man, who says there was a

great conspiracy here; that Ingham and Hynes and Scanlan and the

Clan-na-Gael got up a conspiracy here to murder innocent men, and

I, W. S. Forrest, have discovered it. This man argues this point,

that it was not the cause of death, with the same force and

strength that he does any other point in the case, and yet he knows

in his soul there is nothing in it. Why, he tells you that I made a

blunder in that indictment. Why, gentlemen, if that indictment had

charged that this man was killed and that the cause was unknown,

with all these wounds on his head, with all this blood in the trunk

and in the cottage, wouldn't you have a right to take that into

consideration, the blood in the cottage and on the sidewalk and in

the trunk, and the condition of him when he was found? If I had

drawn such an indictment, he would have a reason to say that. I

don't know what effect their argument has had upon you, whether you

think you know more about drawing an indictment than I do, or Judge

Baker, who has drawn them for years and years, and hence I am going

to read to you just what the doctors say on that proposition.

"But recollect that that can be proven the same as any other

circumstance. But before going into that, gentlemen, I like to talk

when I come to a fact and not leave it for some other time. Mr.

Culver, you buy a wad, you buy a pistol, and you buy a bullet. Now

Culver may intend to have that pistol to shoot somebody. It was

known that you were going to shoot him. Then you are just as guilty

for buying the wad, and you the bullet, and you the powder, as he

is for doing the shooting, fully so. Now, Martin Burke held the

pistol, wad, bullet and all. He hired the cottage, he moved the

furniture, he was present when it was ordered. But if he only did

all that, just as I say, it must be a criminal intention. Suppose

you said you didn't buy that powder at all, had nothing to do with

it. Well, we find out that when you bought the powder that you said

you were going to give it to Culver, and Culver was going to shoot

Longenecker for talking so long about this case. That would nail

you. The same way as the other. Now, of course, just to say that

these innocent acts alone of themselves are not criminal, but what

may seem to be innocent may be guilty circumstances. That is the

point I want to make on that. Same with Martensen. Here is evidence

from Martensen, who moved the furniture. Why Martensen tells us, 'I

was hired to haul this furniture; that is my business.' He went and

hauled it, and said he was the man who hauled it there. Nothing out

of the way for him to haul that furniture. That circumstance of

itself is innocent, while under certain circumstances it might be

guilty."

The State's Attorney then took up the cause-of-death phase of the

case. He had not, he said, intended to say much about it, as the

Judge, according to law, would tell the jurors that they must

determine the cause. But the statement made by Attorney Forrest to

the effect that if the jurors returned a verdict of acquittal on

the present indictment, the State could try the prisoners again on

an indictment stating that the cause of death was unknown,

compelled him to refer to it. The statement made by Attorney

Forrest was, the speaker cried, absolutely untrue. No law would

permit the suspects to be tried again. Moreover, the indictment was

strictly in accord with the testimony given by the medical

witnesses who had on the stand sworn that death was caused by

violence from blows inflicted on the head.

The theory that because the Doctor might have, under certain

circumstances, died from a stroke of apoplexy, was no reason why he

had died of apoplexy.

"If he died of apoplexy," cried the State's Attorney, "why were his

shirt and pantaloons cut to get them off him? Why was he stripped,

his body put in one sewer and his clothes in another? The

physicians, some of them, admitted that such wounds as found on the

Doctor's head might not cause death. Well, a bullet in the bowels

of a man might not kill him, but if a man with a bullet wound there

was found dead, it would be judged by any man of sense that the man

died from the effects of the bullet wound."

The assault upon the testimony of the State by Attorney Forrest

came in for extended argument. "It showed how weak is the testimony

of the defense," he exclaimed, "it shows how weak it is when this

three-day lawyer spends nearly the whole of that time on our

evidence and but fifteen minutes on his own. Forrest did quote a

little Scripture, so did the devil. Forrest talked about Matthew,

Mark, Luke and John, about whom his Sunday-school teacher taught

him. He said that they disagreed; and because they disagreed, he

tried to argue, that Mrs. Conklin and the young ladies who

corroborated her, must have lied because they agreed. The only

thing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have to do with this case

is that they all point to Calvary, and, gentlemen, the evidence in

this case points to Calvary [Cronin was buried at Calvary]. It was

easy for him to deny the truth of our testimony, and especially

that of Mrs. Hoertel, but he didn't attack Mrs. Hoertel's

character. Why? Because they knew it was spotless."

"Now, the gentleman says there are other witnesses, and among them

Dinan, has an interest in the museum, and all that. Why, Dinan made

the statement he made here before the coroner's inquest. The same

statement he made here, he made in the presence of Dan Coughlin,

and yet this learned lawyer, who spent three days talking about

witnesses and not fifteen minutes over his own defense, tells you

Dinan swears in this case because he has an interest in keeping the

gray horse in the museum. Then, gentlemen, you remember his

attitude toward Mrs. Conklin, whose evidence was straight forward,

who gave her testimony before the coroner, and who made her

statement the very day after Dr. Cronin disappeared. What has he

said but that he would have you believe she was sitting there

committing willful and deliberate perjury; this woman who felt that

Dr. Cronin was gone; who felt he was dead, who charged O'Sullivan

with being in the conspiracy before she could induce the officers

of the law to believe anything was wrong. He would have you

believe, as he said, that she lied while upon the stand, and yet

you noticed how she gave her evidence. The same tactics were

pursued with Conklin and all the other witnesses. It was asserted

that all of it came out after the coroner's inquest. Why look at

it. He talked about the horse and well knows that she described

and that she mentioned about his knees when before the coroner. Her

identification of that horse was like your identification would be

of a man who might come into your house to-night and you might see

him under a gas jet. If you saw him in the street in daylight the

next day you might not know him, but if you ever saw him under a

gas jet under the same circumstances you would immediately say,

'There he is.' His stooping position, his eyes, and a dozen other

things would strike your memory and make you certain of your

identification.

"So with Mrs. Conklin. When she saw the horse in the same position

it was on the evening Dr. Cronin was driven to his death, she

immediately said, 'that is the horse.' Why, because she saw the

unquiet appearance of the horse and the movement of its legs, and

she at once said 'that is the horse.' But it was not necessary for

her to be so positive in the identification of the horse. She said

it was a white horse and a top buggy without side curtains from the

very start, and the moment she saw Dinan's horse and buggy she

identified it. Then he tells you that Mertes was fixed by us to see

Coughlin driven up to that cottage, and he tells you that without

Mertes we could not have proved that Coughlin was ever there. He

also tells you that without Mrs. Hoertel and Mertes we could not

prove that Cronin was murdered. Well, to a certain extent the great

lawyer is right, for without any evidence we could not prove the

crime. Now, take Coughlin's conduct in regard to that white horse.

Or, before we reach that I would call your attention to the fact

that it was known that Dr. Cronin had been driven away from the

Conklin residence in a buggy drawn by a white horse, for on the

Monday morning, long before it was known that Dr. Cronin was

murdered, before any one had charged that there was anything wrong

with him except Mrs. Conklin, word was sent out from the police

force to see who had a white horse and buggy out on Saturday night,

and yet this lawyer would have you, as an honest jury, believe that

we were trying to have Mertes swear that he saw Coughlin drive

there with a bald-faced brown horse for the purpose of swearing his

life away. It is absurd to talk such stuff as that. Yet he would

have you believe it. Mertes never mentioned the matter until after

the body was found; until after the cottage was discovered and it

was advertised as to what horse had driven Cronin away.

"But here is a significant fact to which I wish to direct your

attention. Why should Dan Coughlin, on the Monday morning, before

any one had charged that Dr. Cronin was murdered, when Captain

Schaack said he would turn up all right, when he was not uneasy,

when he told Mrs. Conklin to wait until night, when the world and

every one almost had accepted the statement that the trunk had

contained the body of a woman, on account of the statement made by

a certain man, why should Dan Coughlin be so anxious about the

horse his friend had driven? No one had told him that any one drove

a white horse, and why should he say to Dinan, 'Don't mention it,

because Cronin and I were not friends?' Gentlemen, at that time

Coughlin knew that Dr. Cronin was murdered, and he knew that the

white horse and buggy had carried him to his death. Think of the

matter, and remember that it was on the Monday morning before any

one had charged that anything had happened to Dr. Cronin that he

was so anxious to have the matter concealed. Why was he induced to

believe that that horse had taken Dr. Cronin to his death? No one

had charged that he had anything to do with it; no one believed the

poor woman, and why should Coughlin be so ready to believe it when

Captain Schaack did not believe it, when the chief of police did

not believe it, when the public prosecutor did not believe it, and

when the community were led to believe that Dr. Cronin was alive? I

ask you again, why should Dan Coughlin, on the 6th of the month,

the second day after the murder, and before anything had been

discovered, tell Dinan to keep still.

"This man, Forrest, tells you that because we have only one witness

to a fact, therefore, it is put up and is a lie. He goes on to tell

you about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that is about all he

knows about the Bible. He says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not

agreed, and he quotes that to show that Mrs. Conklin and the two

Miss McNearneys when they gave a description of the man who called

for Dr. Cronin lied, because, as he says, they agreed in their

description. The trouble with him is they didn't tell the story all

alike, but the material part of it they did tell alike. All that

leads up to the identification of the man who drove Cronin, the

central figure, they do agree upon, and that is true. The same way

with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While they give it in different

language, do not they all point to Calvary, and so it is with this

evidence of the Misses McNearney and Mrs. Conklin, and the evidence

also of Dinan; it is the evidence of witnesses who tell the truth

and it all points you to Calvary. I do not intend to dwell upon all

that Forrest has talked to you about. He has talked about the

evidence of that wagon, and seems to think a good deal more of

sound than he does of sight. He regards sound as being far better

than sight, hence I think he will appreciate my speech on this

account.

"He says that wagon was driven from away across the railroad

crossing onto Fullerton avenue. No one saw it cross the railroad

track, and Officer Steib says, the first he saw of it it was east

of Ashland avenue. He also says that before he saw it he heard it

rumbling over the railroad track, but he does not know whether it

was this wagon he heard rumbling or some other. But there is not

enough in it for us to stop long to consider whether it crossed the

railroad track or not. The fact is the same. They did not see it

until it was east of Ashland avenue, and then they saw it coming

back on Ashland avenue. There is no reason why they could not drive

around the block if they wanted to, but we do not know what course

they took, yet we do know they could have taken that course very

easily, and if they had taken a direct course they would have been

tracked from the cottage to the place of their destination.

"Forest then says to you: 'It is strange, isn't it, that they drove

right down toward the city, where they could be seen by the police

force?' It does not seem that the police force hurt them any. They

were seen by half a dozen officers and not stopped, and the man who

drove the wagon did not seem afraid of police officers, but on the

contrary seemed to know just what police officer to strike. They

got along to Fullerton avenue, and they knew that it was just the

very thing to do to drive along a street where they would not be

suspected. Suppose they had driven along Ashland avenue straight to

where they went to dispose of the body, they would have been

unquestionably tracked. But we are not here to argue why they did

or did not do certain things. Those men who murdered Dr. Cronin and

thrust his body into the sewer, can probably tell you far better

than I can. There is reason for acquitting the men if you believe

them guilty, simply because we can not tell exactly the way they

drove around or in what direction. The fact is they were seen on

Fullerton avenue, going east, about half-past 11 o'clock. At 12

o'clock they were seen going north on Clark street, and at 1

o'clock they were at Evanston avenue and Edgewater, and one man sat

on the wagon, facing backward.

"Another point. Some one during the trial, and I think I took that

position myself, during the time Forrest was arguing the question

of the trunk, said they kicked it open. Now, it does not matter

whether they kicked it open or not. Men who could open a sewer

could pry that lock open as well as any one else. He wants you to

understand that the officer pried it off, but you will remember

that those two honest Germans testified that they found the lid

separate from the trunk, and that they gathered it up and put it

with the trunk. Now, it does not matter whether the lock was broken

open or whether the trunk was kicked open. The fact is it was

locked; that the trunk was in the wagon and the key was gone. Is it

for us to say whether they pried open that trunk or kicked it open

from the rear? Our theory is that they kicked it open, and that

when they found it would not open wide enough they pulled the lock

off. We don't know how it was done. His clients can tell you better

perhaps than we can if they had anything to do with it, which we

insist they had under the evidence."

"I take an exception to that remark of Judge Longenecker's," said

Mr. Forrest.

"Oh, yes," replied the State's Attorney, "take your exception.

Forrest also said that the key was found by a trunk-maker, because

he found on the stand a man, Officer Lorch, who had worked once as

a trunk-maker. Do you believe what Officer Lorch said as to where

he found that key, or do you believe that he went and fitted a key

to the trunk, then put some paint on it, put it where it was under

the washstand, and then came into this court and swore to a lie? If

you want to believe Forrest's statement against that of the

officer, believe it. But we say that after they had got the trunk

into the wagon they found that the trunk was locked and the key

gone, but it does not matter. We could theorize as to how that key

was missing on the floor, but it is not necessary. It is in

evidence that that key was found in the cottage, and it is in

evidence that the trunk was locked and had not a key upon it when

they went to take out the body. Yet this learned lawyer would have

you believe this is a conspiracy on the part of the people, and he

says it began after the coroner's inquest. That is his statement. A

conspiracy to convict innocent men! Now, look at it. I suppose he

would have you believe, and he might just as well go on to charge,

that the body of Dr. Cronin was put there by the conspirators on

the part of the State, and that the trunk was put where it was by

the same conspirators on May 5th, also that the clothes were put in

the sewer in a sachel just like the one these men bought at

Revell's, and not only that, but that Martin Burke knew he was

going to be brought into that conspiracy when he went to Winnipeg.

He would also have you believe that Martin Burke knew after the

coroner's inquest and before his name was mentioned that there

would be a great conspiracy, and that they would try to implicate

him, and therefore he would go to Winnipeg. I merely mention those

matters, gentlemen, because you will have observed that Mr. Forrest

argued them with the same force that he argued every circumstance

connected with this case, and you can appreciate the sincerity of

his argument. Is it to intimidate the people's representatives, so

that they would not dare go further in this hellish conspiracy? Is

it for that purpose, or what does he mean by it? If it means that

he thinks he can intimidate the representatives of the people in

this case, he has struck the wrong blow, because it is our duty to

present these matters as we get them, and we shall use our weak

endeavors to do our duty.

"Mr. Forrest spoke as earnestly about that and was as much in

earnest as he was when he spoke to you of the identification of

Burke. He read to you an authority of a case which occurred about

three hundred and fifty years ago, where the identification was

contested. According to his reasoning, a man might go into your

house, shoot your wife before your eyes, and then if you can

identify him the moment you see him you are not to be believed. He

argues that before you can be believed you must put him in a line

of a hundred men, let them walk through a room one by one, and then

pick him out. That he argues in the face of undisputed evidence

that you saw him kill your wife, yet he would have you believe that

you could not rely upon any such evidence as that for

identification. The man who could be mistaken in Martin Burke's

face, surely must be blind. It is a case of undisputed

identification. The case Forrest refers to, is where it has been

contested; where three or four witnesses swear that is the man and

others swear that it is not the man; where witnesses swear that it

is the horse and others swear that it is not the horse; where some

witnesses swear that it is so and other witnesses swear that it is

not so, but who ever heard of any man, any lawyer, any man, indeed,

in his senses undertaking to talk with sincerity and urge upon

twelve honest men that where five witnesses come forward and swear

to the face of Martin Burke, that he is the man, and are not to be

believed. Who ever heard of a second-class lawyer, or even a police

court shyster, claiming that that identification was not perfect?

Five undisputed witnesses, old man Carlson, Mother Carlson, Charles

Carlson, Mrs. Charles Carlson, and Mortensen, five witnesses swear

that that is the man who rented the cottage, yet that same learned

lawyer is undertaking to mislead you into the belief that that

identification is not to be relied upon. It is absurd.

"Well, if he will argue that Martin Burke is not the man who was

there on the 4th of May, if he will argue under this evidence that

Martin Burke did not rent that cottage, if he will argue that he

did not move that furniture there, if he will argue that Martin

Burke was not seen on the premises there, and tell me that he is in

earnest, and you believe his argument, tell me when and where you

would convict a man of crime, if the lawyer takes the position he

did in this case. But he says the old man Carlson could not tell it

was the 4th of May. How do you know? When that old man got on the

stand, Forrest was yelling at the top of his voice, 'How do you

know, how do you know?' while the old man yelled at the top of his

voice, 'Because I know.' Yet he would have you believe he said 'How

do you know?' in such a meek and mild tone that he could not hurt

anyone's feelings. He is not sincere when he says that the State's

Attorney and Mr. Hynes and Mr. Ingham are engaged in a conspiracy,

and when he abuses the witnesses on the stand and charges them with

perjury and lying, he knows in his heart that it is not true. He

has made insinuations against that big-hearted Irishman sitting

there, Mr. Hynes, of bullying witnesses, which he knows is untrue.

There is not a man who practices before the bar of Chicago who is

more lenient with the witness than is Mr. Hynes, and there is not a

man at the bar who will get more out of him than will Mr. Hynes.

You, gentlemen, heard his cross-examination of the defendants'

experts, and his examination of the witnesses who came to the

stand, and I will leave it to you to decide, and not to Forrest, if

he abused the witnesses on the stand. For three days this learned

counsel for the defense stood before you twelve gentlemen and had

no stock in trade; not a word to say in their defense beyond

abusing and scandalizing the men who are trying this case, and who

are seeing that the people of this great State are not

misrepresented. He stood here and maliciously abused Mr. Hynes,

whose only effort and desire has been that the guilty men, if they

are guilty, shall be punished, and it is my duty as an officer of

the State, to explain this matter to you and to hurl back the

insinuations at the man who made them.

"He told you further that I had made a blunder, but he did not tell

you how many blunders he had made. He told you I had made a blunder

with the same force that he tells you that Mertes lied when he

testified that he saw Coughlin at the Carlson cottage, and when he

tells you that, his clients have not been proved guilty,

notwithstanding all our witnesses' lies. Suppose what he says about

Mertes and his knowing it was May 4th is proved, what difference

does it make whether it was on the night of May 4th or not. But he

does put this man Kunze and Dan Coughlin together at the Carlson

cottage. He puts Coughlin in the cottage and Kunze driving him

there, and he and his associates gave you good evidence of their

sincerity when they went to the cottage or house where this poor

man lives, who can talk but very little of the English language,

and told him that the Court had sent them to find out what he knew.

Yet when he comes here and gives his evidence on the witness stand

they tell him he lied, but they carefully abstained from saying

what they did when they went to see him. You will remember how they

examined him and put words into his mouth that he did not

understand, and then tried to impeach him, but I think you,

gentlemen, will admit that it is proved beyond question that

Coughlin went to the cottage; that he had a key to it in his

pocket; that he was perfectly at home there, and that Kunze drove

him there.

"Then he says old man Carlson did not see Burke there on the night

of the 4th. He could not tell you why the old man did not see him,

although the old man said distinctly that he did; but this we do

know, that the next morning he and his wife were out in front of

the cottage and they saw something on the steps which they say

looked like preserves, and he said to his wife that he supposed

they had been moving in the night before. You will remember that

Burke had said to old Carlson that it was about time to move in.

Yes; move in. It was a bad day for Burke when he moved in, and it

was a bad day for Dr. Cronin when he moved in."

"The witness said it was about time to fix up," said Mr. Forrest.

"Yes. I think he did. It was a pretty bad time to fix up," retorted

the State's Attorney. "Fix up is a better word, and a nice fix they

made of it. Old man Carlson tells you that the next morning he

thought they had moved in. Forrest says you must not believe old

Carlson, because he is an old man, and that the story about the

wagon tracks he did not tell before the coroner. That is very true,

but he says here that there was a wagon track, and it certainly was

not necessary for the old man to commit perjury in order to prove

that there was a wagon track. A great many thing's have happened

which were not testified to before the coroner's inquest, but

Forrest says that none of them are true. He first complains and

abuses us when getting a jury because there was so much known of

the case and so much published, and yet, because we did not publish

the whole thing to the world and before the coroner, he abuses us

before the petit jury. You can not please him, and the only way to

please him is to give him evidence sufficient to acquit his

clients.

"Mr. Forrest brought the trunk in here and exhibited it to you and

I have a right to say a few words about that. I also desire to say

a few words about the clothes and the necktie, which was cut

through at the neck. They cut his pantaloons off, they cut his

clothes off and did not take the time to take them off."

"I want to enter an objection to the jury's inspecting the

clothes," hastily remarked Mr. Forrest, jumping to his feet.

"I don't care about the clothes," replied the State's Attorney.

"You exhibited the trunk, and I am going to speak of that, although

they are all in evidence. At the same time I desire to call your

especial attention to the necktie, which was not unfastened in the

front but cut from behind. They had the man on his face, and when

they stripped his body of the clothing they cut his necktie. Now, I

want to show you this bloody trunk. They never turned up the bottom

of this trunk to show you what is there. There is some of the blood

which ran through the trunk. Do you see this blood in the trunk?

You do not believe that the man in that trunk died from apoplexy do

you? You do not believe that he died from poison, do you? You do

not believe he died a natural death. Where was the trunk found? It

was found within three-quarters of a mile south of where the body

was found in a catch-basin, and right by its side, within three or

four blocks, were found the clothes of Cronin in the sewer.

Remember that the wagon was seen half a mile north of where the

body was found with this trunk in it, which was then thought to be

a carpenter's chest, and it was seen coming this way empty three

blocks east of where the body was found.

"I want to call your attention to this matter because it is

important. You will remember that Mr. Ingham mentioned the fact in

his statement that when seen they were north of Bryn Mawyr avenue,

looking for the Lake Shore drive in the sand, whereas, if they had

honestly been looking for the Lake Shore drive, they would have

found it south. Now then, put these three things together. You know

where the body was found and the clothes were found, and between

those two points this trunk was found with blood fresh in it that

could be stirred by those honest Germans the next morning, with

cotton batting saturated with blood, and if you put those things

together, you will have reason to believe that it was the same

trunk that came from the Carlson cottage. Why? Because the trunk in

the Carlson cottage was just such a trunk, and it had been moved,

and in the valise was found Cronin's clothes, and that valise was

moved from 117 Clark street and was found in the sewer. I am going

to make up a chain of evidence in this case, although I am not

going all over those outside circumstances, because every

circumstance which is proved in the case is not necessary for a

conviction; mark that. If you get instructions from the court that

there is a necessary circumstance lacking, and if you have a

reasonable doubt on that material circumstance, and if there can be

no conviction without that circumstance in the case, then you can

not convict. But every circumstance in the case that is proved is

not a material or necessary circumstance. If such circumstances as

are necessary to lead your minds to believe the guilt of the

accused beyond a reasonable doubt are clearly proved, that is all

that is necessary for you to be satisfied upon. You need all these

little outside circumstances, because they corroborate and make

stronger each link in the chain of evidence. You want to remember

that every point which leads in the direction of a correct

conclusion to your minds should be very clear to you. As to whether

they affect the material circumstances is another matter.

"I want you to remember that Burke went to Winnipeg. Forrest says

that he never attempted to deceive the officers there or to go

under an assumed name, but Officer McKinnon tells you that he first

said his name was Cooper, and when the chief of police told him any

statement he made would be used in evidence against him, then, for

the first time, he said his name was Burke. Again, when Patrick

O'Sullivan was requested to come to the police station and he saw a

lot of men standing back of the Carlson cottage, he wanted to know

what those men were doing in that cottage, clearly showing that he

knew what had transpired in the cottage. Another thing I want you

to remember is what Beggs said after the murder, when he said to

Maurice Morris and another person in the presence of Ward, who did

not take the stand, 'Cronin is all right; we know what we are

talking about and you do not; you are not in the inner circle.'

Whoever said it was the organization or a part of the Clan-na-Gael

which formed that inner circle? We did not, but that inner circle

was made up of members of the order, men who knew what was going

on. Foster says Beggs' remark was advertising the murder, but it

was not. It means that he and other members who were interested in

the murder of Dr. Cronin were an inner circle; that he knew where

Cronin could be found, and that he believed his remains would keep

there undiscovered until they could not be identified. You have

another link, then, in the chain of evidence, and you have to take

every circumstance in the case that leads you up to the chain, and

strengthens each link in the chain that was forged by Beggs. Then

he answers: 'Why didn't you call Tom Murphy?' We had him before the

grand jury, and we examined his books, but the idea of calling Tom

Murphy himself when his partner sits here and has sat here from the

beginning of the trial as a lawyer for the defendant! As to the

money in the camp, Tom Murphy did not have enough money in the

funds of the organization to square his own account, let alone

spending money for killing Cronin. We did not claim that he did. We

do not claim that the camp paid the expenses, but we have the right

to take Tom Murphy before the grand jury and investigate the camp

in order to discover who were the conspirators.

"Now, gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon their defense at

all. They have no defense. When we started in this case we groped

in the valley and you groped in the valley. When you looked for the

evidence you found it. If you are looking for an excuse to acquit

those defendants, you may acquit them either on the ground that we

have not stated the cause of death, or you can acquit them on the

ground that you do not believe the evidence. But you are not going

to do that; you are too honorable men to do so. The people of the

State of Illinois have rights as well as these defendants. I would

not ask you to convict the men unless you feel that the evidence

justified you in doing so, but their defense, what is it? It is

shorter than the defendants can cover themselves by lying upon it,

and, as a covering, it is narrower than they can wrap themselves

in. There is no defense. Since we were groping in the valley we

have piled up a mountain of evidence, until you have the mountain

peaks, which stand out so clearly, that all of you can not fail to

see them, and there stands the evidence, irresistible,

unimpeachable and indisputable. Gentlemen, let us see what we have

got.

"Let us start in on this chain. Go into Camp 20 and see what there

is there. You find that there was a committee appointed; you find

that charges were made about spies; you find there was a circle of

brothers banded together. Take in the 22d of February; take in the

speech of Beggs; take in the letters of Spelman. There you have got

a link. You start out from Camp 20 with that link. You go over to

117 South Clark Street; you go to Revell; you take the buying of

the trunk and the buying of the valise and the buying of the

furniture; the putting of it into 117 Clark street, and Kunze is in

there as a man to throw the public off as to the cause of the

occupancy. There you have a second link. The trunk, the valise, the

strap and the furniture form a second link. Put that on and follow

it up. These two links are undisputed and undenied. There is no

dispute as to that second link; you find Martin Burke taking the

furniture and putting the trunk and valise into that cottage. There

is a third link undisputed; no question about it, unless you want

to disbelieve the five witnesses as to the identification of Martin

Burke. You go on and you find Patrick O'Sullivan contracting with

Cronin, that is the fourth link. There are four links established

by evidence and undisputed leading up to the murder of Dr. Cronin.

You come to Dan Coughlin; he has the horse and buggy; that is the

fifth link. These five links are as solid as the rocks--as solid as

iron; five undisputed links in the chain. You find, further, on

Evanston road, the trunk, the body and the clothes. That is another

link. There are six links that lead from Camp 20 to the grave of

Dr. Cronin. We have the first link made by the Clan-na-Gael

brotherhood in Camp 20; to that add Beggs' letters and his

statements about the inner circle; to that add that that committee

was to report to him alone; to that add everything that Beggs did

and said; it is all hanging on that link. We find Burke renting the

cottage and saying that his sister is going to keep house with him;

we find him disappear; we find him in Winnipeg. That is another

link. Then there is the P. O'Sullivan link; you find his printed

card was presented to Dr. Cronin, and the man who presents it says,

'O'Sullivan wants you to go to his ice house.' That is an

undisputed circumstance. All these circumstances are leading you up

to the murder of Dr. Cronin. Take Dan Coughlin's statement to

Dinan; take his statement that Smith, from Hancock, Michigan, is

the man who drove the rig, the very man that Burke went to see at

Hancock, Michigan, and who says John Ryan is his friend.

"Look at it! There never was such a chain of circumstances. The

chain itself is strong, and yet all those circumstances, those

little links, are as strong--so strong that they can not be broken.

And yet this lawyer will stand up here for three days and say there

is not evidence enough to convict! Now, another thing that goes to

add to P. O'Sullivan's link and to show that he was not honest in

that contract is the testimony of this man A. J. Ford. He testifies

that he made a speech in Camp 20, in which he said that there were

men fraternizing with the deputies up in the Washington Literary

Society in Lake View, and he gave this man O'Sullivan as his

authority. There is another circumstance. Why then did O'Sullivan,

if he believed that Cronin was organizing a lodge there--if he

believed that that literary society was taking in men opposed to

the Irish cause--why did he think Cronin was a friend of his, and

why did he go and make a contract with Dr. Cronin? Now, gentlemen,

I have laid down these links; you take it in Camp 20, follow it to

117 Clark street, to the cottage, to Dan Coughlin's horse and

buggy, to the trunk, the body and the clothes. You come back to

Camp 20 and it falls at the feet of John F. Beggs. His lawyer says

that John F. Beggs is the dupe of no man. No, gentlemen; but John

F. Beggs is just as guilty, if he was in this conspiracy, as Martin

Burke, every bit. The learned counsel told you a story here, and it

was very apt. He told you that men who had been defrauding the

government and doing crooked work took a man who was on their track

and put him over the brink of a precipice and swung him back and

forth, and he says one of them climbed up and cut the rope, and an

innocent man, innocently charged, dropped on the rocks below and

was cut to pieces. The men who stood by and laughed while this was

being done were just as guilty as the man who cut the rope. John F.

Beggs, if he was in this conspiracy, is just as guilty as the men

who dealt the blows, every bit. Now, in such a case as that, where

an innocent man was swung out over the rocks--where these men who

were criminals themselves, swung a man over a cliff down to

death--what would you do if you were on a jury to try such men?

"Gentlemen, I am through; I promised you I would hurry up. I do not

believe that if I were to talk from now till next June I would

change your opinion one way or another. If you are settled to turn

these men loose, you will do it; if you believe this evidence is

not sufficient to convict them, why of course you will acquit them.

But I want to call your attention to your responsibility.

Gentlemen, this is a serious matter; it has got down to business. I

have been sitting here for weeks, and indisputed evidence that must

lead your minds to the conclusion that Dr. Cronin was murdered,

evidence that must lead to the conclusion that it was done by a

conspiracy; evidence that must convince your minds that it was a

cold-blooded murder, that it was planned in secret, that it was

done with the coolness of those men who swung the man over the

cliff--you must have come to the conclusion that if there ever was

a murder case in which the extreme penalty of the law was demanded

at your hands by a verdict of that kind, this is one. Remember that

you are not here to acquit guilty men; you are not here to convict

innocent men. Remember that we are here insisting that this

evidence is so overwhelming that you, as honest men, under your

oaths, can not resist this volume of proof, and that it ought to

convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that all five of these men

are guilty of this crime."