Chapter XX

A JURY SECURED AT LAST--NAMES AND SKETCHES OF THE TWELVE MEN SELECTED TO
DETERMINE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED--THE TRIAL UNDER WAY--OPENING
SPEECHES FOR THE STATE--SCENES IN THE COURT ROOM.

Hundreds, if not thousands of people besieged the entrances to the Criminal Court building at an early hour on the morning of Friday, October 25th. It was the opening day of the great trial. Men and women were wedged together in a compact mass. They were packed solid on the iron steps leading down from the entrance onto the sidewalk, and out in the road to the other side of the street. Special instructions had been given to the bailiffs to maintain order, as well as to eject all suspicious persons. They made a bold fight for awhile, but when the doors had been opened they were overwhelmed by numbers. Within a few minutes every seat in the court room was occupied, and hundreds were fighting for places to stand. The crowd below pressed upward and it began to look as though the building would be taken by storm. Reinforced in numbers, however, the bailiffs made another rally against the crowd, and finally succeeded in closing the doors. Only those presenting special orders were admitted for the rest of the day.

THE SCENE IN COURT.

The clock in the court room was striking ten when the prisoners filed in through the door communicating with the iron corridor that led to the jail. Ex-Senior Warden Beggs led the procession. Behind him came Coughlin, O'Sullivan, Burke and Kunze, in the order named. A big bailiff walked shoulder to shoulder with each prisoner. For a moment the five men who were about to be placed on trial for their lives appeared paralyzed as they contemplated the immense throng that had gathered to gaze at them, and to listen to the opening address in behalf of the State. Beggs was as white as a sheet, Burke's face crimsoned, while the faces of the other prisoners turned pale and red by turn. Close after them came the attorneys for the defense, then those for the prosecution, then Judge McConnell, and lastly the jurors.

Each of the twelve good men and true rose in his place and answered as his name was called. This was the roster:

John Culver, age 43; born in Illinois; father, American; mother, Scotch; married; real estate business; Methodist Episcopal.

James A. Pierson, 54; born in New York State; parents, American; married; farmer; no religion.

Charles C. Dix, 33; born in Chicago; American parents; bachelor; insurance business; Episcopalian.

John L. Hall, 29; born in Illinois; American parents; married; architectural draughtsman; Methodist Episcopal.

Henry D. Walker, 58; born in Massachusetts; American parents; married; upholsterer; Protestant.

Frank Allison, 39; born in New York State; American parents; machinist; no religion.

George Luther Corke, 30; born in Illinois; parents, English; married; druggist; Methodist.

William Stanley North, 33; born in Cleveland, Ohio; American parents; married; manufacturer; Presbyterian.

Edward S. Bryan, 40; born in New Jersey; American parents; married; law book salesman; Congregationalist.

Elijah Bontecou, 35; born in Troy, N. Y.; American parents; married; salesman; Protestant.

Charles F. Marlor, 30; born in New York; parents, American; married; clerk; Episcopalian.

Benjamin F. Clark, 53; American by birth and parentage; married; real estate dealer; Methodist.

LONGENECKER'S MASTERLY EFFORT.

Breathless silence prevailed. Judge McConnell inclined his head. The gavel fell. State's Attorney Longenecker, with his hands thrust deep into the pockets of his trousers, was on his feet in an instant. Without any preliminaries, he plunged direct into his opening address. The effects of the months of hard work he had devoted to the case were plainly apparent. His face was pale and his voice weak, but he braced himself for his task, and without any attempt at oratory, but in a plain, succinct manner which indicated that he had thoroughly mastered his subject, he gave to the jury in the short space of two hours a complete and admirable statement of the evidence that had been collected and would be submitted to the body. Commencing with a review of the conception and progress of the Clan-na-Gael, he traced the movements of the organization and the extent of the active interest in its affairs that had been manifested by the murdered man. The motive for the crime, he declared, was the bold warfare which Dr. Cronin had waged against his enemies and especially against the deadly and malicious plottings of the triangle. The speaker became thoroughly aroused as he dealt with this branch of his subject, and with his right hand sweeping the air, he lashed the triangle in the most vigorous English. Mr. Forrest objected that the famous and omnipotent triumvirate had nothing to do with the case, but the objection was overruled. The State's Attorney went on to declare that the plotting against Dr. Cronin began about the first of the year. It was in Camp 20 that the conspiracy had been hatched, and of this Camp Beggs, Coughlin, Cooney, Burke and O'Sullivan were members. Here it was that the fate of the victim was sealed, and the commission of the crime intrusted to reliable hands. In vivid language the speaker proceeded to show the lizard-like deliberation with which the plotters had gone about their work; how they had purchased the furniture and trunk, rented the cottage, lured the physician from his residence; beaten out his life; robbed the corpse of every article of identification; save the "agnus dei" which was fastened around the neck; thrust it into the trunk; borne it to Edgewater; and there dumped it into the catch basin. The prisoners scowled and the jury listened with looks of intense interest as the State's Attorney, although almost exhausted by his effort, continued with his vivid recital. The evidence which would be presented against each one of the prisoners was briefly mapped out, and the speaker grew more earnest than ever as he went on to tell how the hidden hand that directed the murder had sought to malign the dead. The word had been passed to the rank and file that Dr. Cronin was a spy and that he would soon appear across the water as another Le Caron. It was possible that the actual murderers were led to their work by this belief. It was certain at least that a dastardly attempt had been made by the hidden hand to spread the spy theory after the doctor had disappeared. Men had been told to do such acts as would leave the public to believe that the physician was still alive, and so successful had they been that only by a mere accident was it that their plans were crushed forever. And so the speaker went on with his straightforward narrative of the conspiracy and its sequel and finally closed a powerful address with a brief peroration in which he admonished the jurors to do their duty without fear or favor. Among other things, the State's Attorney said, in the course of his address:

THE LAW IN THE CASE.

"Gentlemen of the jury, you have been selected with great care to
try this case. You have been questioned perhaps more than you
thought proper, yet we thought it our duty to be very inquisitive
with reference to your past histories, so that we might, in trying
this very important case, feel that we had twelve men who would
render a fair and impartial verdict. You all stand before this
court and before this community with characters that are written,
and if, after hearing the evidence in this case, you render a
truthful verdict, whether that verdict be to unlock the prison
doors and set at liberty these men, or whether it be to inflict the
highest punishment for the crime with which they are charged, you
can go out into the world with a passport of duty done which will
be an honor to you through all the future of your lives. Each of
you has said under your oaths that you would try this case upon the
law and the evidence--that you would render a verdict based
exclusively upon the law and the evidence; that you would not be
controlled by public opinion; that you would not be governed by
anything other than the evidence in the case; no matter how much
regard you may have for public opinion, no matter how much we may
feel that oftentimes public opinion is right, yet you as jurors are
sworn to try this case on the evidence and the law, and to render a
verdict based upon it exclusively. You answered that you would try
this case fairly and impartially. Fair and impartial verdicts mean
verdicts not only fair to one side, but to both sides of a case on
trial. Too often jurors and courts and even prosecutors, in their
anxiety to be fair toward men on trial, step over the line of duty,
and criminals go unpunished and the law becomes a farce. While I
want you to give these men a fair and impartial trial; while we
desire that you give them the benefit of everything the law in its
wise provisions enables you to give, in your anxiety to be fair
don't step over the line of duty and do an injustice to the people
of this great State. You have said that before you would convict
any man on trial in this case you would want the people to prove
that he is guilty beyond a doubt--a reasonable doubt; that you
would require the State to make out the case from the witness
stand; and that you would respect the provisions of the law that
says every man is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; that
you would not convict any man unless you were satisfied of his
guilt from the evidence. But, let me say, the presumption of
innocence is not evidence in the case, and when you hear of that
presumption all the way through this case understand that it is not
evidence.

"While the law presumes every man innocent until proven guilty, yet
it is not such a presumption as to rebut evidence. Presumption
simply stands up before you and says: Before you can convict this
man he must be proven guilty. And as the evidence is given to you
step by step the presumption stands as a guard between innocence
and the evidence that is being given, until at last, when your mind
is satisfied, when your judgment has come to the conclusion that
the men are guilty, the presumption is wiped out, and you are no
longer to presume the man innocent.

"When you stated that you would not convict these men except they
were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it simply meant
this--that, after hearing the evidence, if you are satisfied of the
truth of the charge; if you are satisfied, as jurymen sworn to do
your duty, that the men on trial are guilty, then you have no right
to go digging around for doubts; you have no right to hunt around
for an excuse to refrain from doing that which the law makes it
your duty to do. A reasonable doubt means a doubt that is
reasonable. I mention these facts because the learned counsel for
the defense, which was proper and right, were anxious to impress on
your minds that before you could convict anybody you must believe
them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have taken an oath in
this case and are sworn to try it upon the law and the evidence.
The oath taken is that you will well and truly try this case and the
verdict render according to the law and the evidence. That means
that there is an issue to be tried. The men at the bar are charged
with the crime of murder on the one hand; that on the 4th of May, in
this county and State, they did maliciously, wickedly and
feloniously kill and murder Dr. Cronin. That is the charge made in
the indictment. On the other hand, these prisoners at the bar say
they are not guilty. That issue is what you are sworn to try. It is
as to whether these men on trial killed and murdered Dr. Cronin.
What is murder? may be asked. Murder is the unlawful killing of a
human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied.
Before you can convict these men it becomes the duty of the people
to prove every material allegation in the indictment. What are the
material allegations in the indictment? First, that Dr. Cronin was
killed; next, that he was killed in this county and State; next,
that these defendants killed him without provocation or excuse.
These are the material issues to be proven in this ease.

"If you believe from the evidence that he was murdered and that
these men killed him, as charged in the indictment, then the
question is settled. Then you have the law as to murder to govern
you, and you are the judges of the law and the evidence; and if you
find that these defendants killed him, and that he was murdered,
then the statute fixes the punishment, or leaves it to you to fix
the punishment. That is the law in the case, except what you may
get from his honor on the bench. I apprehend that the learned
counsel for the defense will not contest the fact, if it is proven
that Dr. Cronin was killed, as we have charged--that he was
stricken to death, as we can prove--I don't apprehend that they
will contend then it was any other homicide than that of murder. So
you will have that question to settle. If we prove that Dr. Cronin
was killed as we allege he was killed, there will be no question as
to whether it was murder or manslaughter; it will be admitted by
the learned counsel for the defense that it was murder or nothing.

THE EVIDENCE MAINLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

"Now, gentlemen, this is the issue that you are to try. His honor
from the bench has pronounced every one of you a qualified juror in
the case; and as now we approach the evidence, I desire to call
your attention to something that was talked of a great deal while
we were selecting this jury. You have by this time learned that
most of the evidence of the case will be that of a circumstantial
character. There are two kinds of evidence, as you have
learned--circumstantial and direct evidence--and yet, after all,
nearly all evidence is circumstantial. You may not have read it,
but any lawyer at the bar will remember reading of the incidents or
illustrations by Wharton and other writers, in which they say that
nearly all evidence is circumstantial. Even if you are looking at a
man holding a pistol, and see him fire it at another, and see the
man drop--that is all circumstantial. You see the man holding the
pistol; you hear the report; you see the other man drop, and you
are satisfied that he is shot, and yet you don't see what killed
him. The bullet is found in his brain; you saw the man pointing the
pistol, and these are the circumstances of that case, although you
saw the acts that brought about the circumstances which led you to
believe he was killed by the bullet. That is one way of
illustrating circumstantial evidence." Here the State's attorney
gave another illustration on the same line, and proceeded: "That is
circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are truths. Nearly every
case that comes into court rests almost exclusively upon
circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is direct evidence making
up the circumstances, but after all, the crime itself, the act
itself, is proved by the circumstances in the case.

"So that, while we must rely upon the circumstances in this case,
yet we propose to show to you evidence enough to convince your
minds thoroughly upon the question of the guilt of these accused.
We shall prove this by circumstances just as much as if there had
been an eye-witness of the scene. You stated, gentlemen, as I said
before, that you would not convict unless your minds were satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, of the guilt of these
defendants. You stated further that if you were satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt--every man of you satisfied--that the crime was of
such a character as to deserve the highest penalty you would then
have no conscientious scruples against capital punishment--that you
were not opposed to capital punishment. It does not matter whether
your minds are satisfied by circumstantial evidence or direct
evidence as to the guilt of the men on trial--you stand pledged on
your oaths to execute the law as you believed it ought to be
executed in the case.

"On the night of May 4th, soon after seven o'clock, was the last
time that Dr. Cronin was ever seen alive, except by the men who
assassinated and beat out his life. Until the 22d day of May his
body was not seen by his friends or any one except those who thrust
it into the catch-basin in Lake View.

"We claim in this case that the murder of Dr. Cronin--as we shall
prove it was a murder--was brought about by a conspiracy. These men
are charged with having murdered Dr. Cronin. The evidence that we
shall introduce will show a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin, and we
shall show that the conspiracy was formed and carried into
execution, and having been carried into execution, terminated in
the killing of Cronin, and that these men are liable for the
murder."

From this point Judge Longenecker went through in detail the entire record of the case as it affected the defendants collectively and as individuals and then continued:

"I believe I have gone over the main points of the evidence. Of
course, there will be evidence here and there showing conclusively
that this conspiracy was well planned, and showing conclusively to
your minds before you are ready to render your verdict that these
defendants are guilty. I said that this was a conspiracy. Any one
who looks at the evidence can see very readily that the acts
committed of themselves are conclusive that the murder was the
result of a conspiracy. When Dr. Cronin's body was found the head
was cut in a dozen places--from behind and on the temple--showing
that they had killed him by giving him lick after lick until his
life was beaten out. All that will be described by the doctors; the
condition of the body shows that the blows were dealt from behind.

"Now, a conspiracy is made up of certain acts by individuals,
either together or separate, and every act that was done by either
of these parties necessary to carry out the object of the
conspiracy binds the others who were in the conspiracy. For
instance, if a conspiracy existed, then the act of Coughlin in
hiring the horse was the act of Burke, the act of Sullivan, or the
act of Beggs, or any other person who engaged in that conspiracy.
The renting of the cottage by Burke under the name of Williams was
the same as if they had all gone there and rented it. The going
over to P. O'Sullivan's to tell him they had rented the cottage was
the going over of all those interested in the conspiracy, and so in
making the contract with Dr. Cronin. If O'Sullivan made a contract
and those other parties were in the conspiracy, and that was a part
of the conspiracy, then they all entered into that contract as a
part of the work to be done. Every act that was done by either of
those parties before the commission of the crime is the act of all,
if you believe there was a conspiracy to kill Dr. Cronin.

ALL ARE GUILTY.

"Another thing I wish to call attention to, and that is that the
accessory is the same as the principal. It does not matter whether
either of these parties struck the deadly blow; it does not matter
whether they were a thousand miles away from the cottage--if it was
a conspiracy and they were accessories to the crime, then they are
principals to the crime just as much as if they helped to strike
the deadly blow. For instance, three men may enter into a
conspiracy, knowing that you have $1,000 in your house. You may
live between Thirtieth and Thirty-first streets, on State. The
three men go to rob your house. One stands at Thirtieth street and
the other at Thirty-first street, and the other goes in and robs
you of your money. All of these three men have committed burglary.
The men who stood on the street corners are just as guilty as the
man who went inside for the purpose of stealing your money.

"When you take this evidence into consideration, when you take the
fact that this man Coughlin hired the horse, and another fact that
after Dinan had gone to the station and Coughlin said: "Don't say
anything about me engaging the horse and buggy; you may get me into
trouble, because Cronin and I were not friends": when you consider
that he claimed that the man for whom the horse and buggy were
hired was named Smith; that he was sent out to hunt Smith and saw
Smith and let him go; when you consider the hiring of the flat at
117 Clark street, the buying of the furniture and the trunk and the
strap, the renting of the cottage, the contract between the doctor
and this man O'Sullivan; the statement that a sister was to be
there to occupy the cottage; the driving of the doctor from his
home under the supposition that he was going to minister to the
wants of an injured man; the appointment of a secret committee at
the instance of Dan Coughlin; the fact that the senior guardian
said that the committee reported to him and not to the camp; the
statements that Dr. Cronin was a spy--the grouping together of all
these things makes the conspirators as guilty as if the murder was
the act of one man.

AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE.

"And, gentlemen, if, after hearing this evidence, you are satisfied
that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are satisfied from the
evidence that this thing has been deliberated upon from the 8th day
of February, or from the 19th of April, when they rented the flat
on Clark street, and all those deliberations to take away the life
of this man Cronin; the appointment of a secret committee; the
attempt to make it appear that the society was trying this man as a
disguise to those who might not approve of such work; all these
things, if they are proved to you; if it appears in evidence that
this great deliberation was had, that this great conspiracy was
concocted as we claim, that this man's life was taken away, as we
shall prove--if all this satisfies your minds, then your duty will
be plain, then you can give the correct answer to the question as
to whether you have conscientious scruples against the death
penalty. Gentlemen, we will present this evidence as rapidly as
possible, but I trust you will be patient with us in this case. It
is a matter that concerns the people as well as the defendants. We
will present it as rapidly as we can, consistent with doing our
duty; and when you have heard this evidence, if you are not
satisfied that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are not satisfied
that these men, whether present at the killing of the doctor, or
whether only present in the conspiracy; if you are not satisfied
that they are guilty of the charge, then, of course, turn them
loose. But if this evidence shows this deep laid conspiracy; shows
its premeditation; shows the coolness with which they planned it;
if it convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that they are
guilty, then your duty is claimed to inflict upon them the highest
penalty of the law."

THE FIVE DEFENDANTS IN COURT.]