Chapter XXIII (1)

OPENING FOR THE STATE.--THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED--A MASTERLY ARGUMENT BY
STATE'S ATTORNEY LONGENECKER--TRACING THE PLOT FROM ITS INCEPTION TO THE
MURDER--AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE--ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE--DONAHOE, WING,
FOSTER AND FORREST MAKE THEIR FINAL PLEAS FOR THE PRISONERS, AND INGHAM,
HYNES AND LONGENECKER CLOSE FOR THE STATE.

State's Attorney Longenecker was on his feet the moment the witness had left the stand. It was apparent that the State was determined to push the remainder of the proceedings with all possible speed. The prisoners looked anxious; the vast audience expectant.

"You may proceed," said Judge McConnell, and clearing his throat, the State's Attorney commenced a memorable address.

He spoke as follows:

"If the Court please, Gentlemen of the Jury, I want to talk to you
about this case, about the evidence which you have been hearing
from the witnesses. I shall not attempt to talk to any one except
you twelve men, because you are now interested in the case and it
is your duty to come to a correct conclusion. The responsibility
rests upon you after we have done our work. I have no doubt that
you twelve men are competent to render such a verdict in this case
as will meet the demands of the law. I have no doubt that you are
prepared on this evidence to render such a verdict as the evidence
warrants you in rendering. Now, I say to you this, that I shall
confine myself to the evidence in the case. My associates will
attend to the arguments and make the speeches. I want now to
express my feeling of gratitude to you for your patience during the
hearing of the evidence. It is due to you, gentlemen; it is a
sacrifice that you, I hope, will never be called upon to make
again. To be taken from your homes and be shut up for weeks and
months is no little sacrifice. You have had reason, perhaps, to
complain of us; you have had reason to complain because of the
slowness of the case; and yet, after all, we felt it our duty to do
what we have done. We felt that we could not in any way shorten the
proceedings and yet do justice to the case. I hope that none of you
will harbor any feeling against any one in this case on account of
delays.

"Again, gentlemen, you are twelve men here listening from day to
day to the evidence; this case has strung out from day to day and
from week to week, until it has become a great case. It has become
a noted case to you--a case that you will never forget. It has
grown as the days have passed by. Very often jurors, courts and
lawyers, when a case grows and there is evidence piling up, forget
that it requires some evidence to reach a conclusion, more of it
than if it was a small case. Do not be led into this error of
determining what you shall do. The evidence of conspiracy is the
same for a small offense as it is for a great offense. The evidence
of conspiracy to obtain dollars and cents from you or me or any one
else must be just as strong, although it only takes two hours to
try the case, as if you are trying men for murder. What I am trying
to have you understand is this: that because it has been so long
and has grown so large, you must not think that it requires more
evidence on that account. If the evidence convinces you of the
guilt of these men, then it matters not whether there are five men
or ten men on trial or only one man. The evidence necessary to
convince you beyond a doubt of the guilt of the men on trial should
be just as strong as if there were twenty men on trial. The law is
always just. It is made to protect the innocent as well as punish
the guilty.

"After you have heard the arguments from counsel on both sides,
having heard the evidence and instructions of the Court, you will
go into your room and make up your verdict and bear in mind that
the law itself is just; if the law compels you to inflict a penalty
here that you do not like to inflict, remember that you are not to
blame and the law is not to blame; it is the men who have violated
the law. What I say to you in this case is from a feeling that we
wish to get at the truth; what I say will be said with a view of
getting at a truthful verdict and nothing else. I have no feeling
against these men on trial personally. Why should I stand up here
and ask you to convict Martin Burke, Daniel Coughlin, Patrick
O'Sullivan, John F. Beggs and John Kunze unless I believe the
evidence justified me in asking you to do it? If I should at this
moment ask you twelve men to convict them upon anything else but
the evidence, I would not be fit to fill the position that I now
occupy. We do not desire that these men shall be 'guessed' guilty.
We do not desire that they shall be convicted upon doubtful
evidence. We do not desire that they shall be convicted upon
anything except the law and the evidence in the case; but if you do
believe that that law and that evidence satisfies your mind of
their guilt, then we do demand at your hands that your verdict
shall be in accordance with the law and the evidence, and nothing
short of a truthful verdict under the law and the evidence will
meet the demands of this case, whether the verdict be to acquit the
defendants or whether it be to convict the defendants; with that
verdict the people represented by myself and my associates must be
content."

REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE.

"Now, gentlemen, as I said, we want to talk about the evidence in
the case. I will do it as hastily as possible, bearing in mind at
the same time that it is necessary that it be presented to you in
such a way as you will see the chain that has been forged from day
to day in this case, and so that you may be enabled from this
evidence to come to a correct conclusion. I shall not attempt to go
over all the evidence, that is all the details, because I apprehend
that you men have watched this evidence as closely as I have; but
what I intend to say to you regarding the evidence will be such as
I think should be mentioned to enable you to come to a correct
conclusion, and I will leave pieces of evidence here and there to
be remembered by yourselves.

"Again, gentlemen, if I should misstate this evidence, I hope that
the attorneys for the defense will call my attention to it; and I
hope it will not be charged that I am trying to take any unfair
advantage of these men who are upon trial for their lives. As I
said to you in my opening of this case, we contend that the murder
of Patrick Henry Cronin was brought about by a conspiracy. We claim
that it was acted upon and executed. And that these men on trial
are parties to the conspiracy, together with others who are not on
trial. That is our position. We further claim that it was a
cold-blooded conspiracy; a conspiracy that is without parallel,
coldly and deliberately planned; a conspiracy that, as we
understand it from the evidence, would chill the blood in the
warmest heart; a conspiracy that is most terrible in its effects.
If such a conspiracy as this has existed, as we know it has
existed, and if the murder has been the result of such a conspiracy
as this, then it follows that it must have been planned for weeks
and weeks before its execution; and if that be true, then,
gentlemen, you must notice the line of evidence in the case in
order to come to a correct conclusion. A conspiracy always
originates somewhere; one man can not conspire, two men may
conspire; oftener three men conspire, and it is easier to commit a
crime where two men are engaged in working it out in different
ways, engaged in bringing about in different ways the same results,
than where the same object is aimed to be accomplished by one man.
Now, it is not necessary, as the Court will instruct you, that we
prove that the parties got together and talked the matter over and
arranged it; that is not necessary; the law does not require that;
we don't need to prove that they ever came together. If that was so
it would be very seldom that a prosecutor could obtain a conviction
in a conspiracy case. Remember this is a charge of murder, brought
about by a conspiracy, and we claim that this evidence shows
conclusively that a conspiracy was concocted by these defendants on
trial. Let us see where we go to start in. Where do we learn of
this conspiracy first?"

CAMP 20'S MYSTERIOUS MEETINGS.

"You remember that there is a Camp 20 in this city. It is proven
here that the Clan-na-Gael organization has a camp called Camp 20,
also named Columbia Club; that they met in North Side Turner Hall,
and that before the date of which I now intend to speak there had
been a division in this organization, and that the two factions had
united, after which the numbers had been changed, so that this Camp
96 had become Camp 20. I will also ask you to remember that before
this reunion of these two organizations, or these two factions of
the organization, a trial committee was appointed to try the
ex-executive body of this organization; that this ex-executive was
to be tried by a committee to be selected at a convention that met
in this city last year in the month of June. You will remember that
Dr. P. H. Cronin was one of the members appointed on that trial
committee, and that after that trial committee had acted, the two
factions were united and the camps were renumbered. I speak of
that, and I want you to bear it in mind, that Dr. Cronin was on
that committee, and that it was shown that there were three men
called trianglers who were being tried by the committee of which
Dr. Cronin was a member. Now we will stop there, and go to this
Camp 20, on the 8th day of February. You go into that camp. We call
the secretary here, John F. O'Connor, and he testifies that on that
occasion, the night of the 8th of February, one Andrew Foy made a
speech. O'Connor can not remember what Foy said, but he tells you
that there were resolutions passed, and that he does recollect that
Thomas F. O'Connor made a speech there. He tells you that Thomas F.
O'Connor had charged that a certain report of the trial committee,
this trial committee to which I have already called your attention,
and of which Dr. Cronin was a member, was read in another camp.
Secretary O'Connor tells you that Thomas F. O'Connor said he had
heard the report of that trial committee read. That is about all
that this man could remember, except that some one jumped up and
demanded to know how it was that some camps had got the reports of
this trial committee before others. He did not pretend to know what
Foy had said in his speech, but he did recollect that some
resolution was passed in regard to the matter.

"We next called Andrew J. Foy. Andrew J. Foy testifies here that he
did make a speech; that he did say that he understood there were
parties getting into the camp who were other Le Carons; that there
were other Le Carons in this country; that there were spies in this
country and in the organization. He admits that in his testimony,
and he further said that they ought to be more careful in admitting
members into the organization and not to admit parties of this kind
into the organization. Then it was that Thomas F. O'Connor made his
speech and said they had better look after the ex-executive if they
wanted to find out the traitors who had been squandering the funds
of the order and sending honest, patriotic men to English prisons.
And thereupon you are told four or five men jumped to their feet
and a motion or suggestion was made to have a secret committee
appointed. What for? [State's Attorney Longenecker paused when he
asked this question and for a moment gazed silently and earnestly
into the jurors' faces.] What for?" he repeated. "Not to get a
report of the trial committee, not to find out what it was that was
contained in this report, but to see why this report was made in
this other camp and who it was had made it. We called Michael J.
Kelly, another member of that organization, a junior guardian in
Camp 20, and what does he say? You must remember that these three
witnesses were not what might be called willing witnesses. These
three witnesses that were first called here upon the stand were
unwilling witnesses for the people; but we called them. We called
Michael Kelly to the stand, and he remembers that a speech was made
by Foy, and he remembered that Thomas F. O'Connor made a speech,
and that Le Caron's name perhaps was mentioned, but he does not
remember much about it. He does tell you, however, that Thomas F.
O'Connor stated that he had heard Dr. Cronin read that report in
his, Dr. Cronin's, camp. That is about all we got out of him. We
then called to the stand Anthony J. Ford, who was very fair in the
witness stand, and he goes on and tells you that Andrew Foy made a
speech, but he does not remember very much about Foy's speech. He
also remembers that Thomas F. O'Connor made a speech in reply to
that, and he tells you here in reference to that matter. We called
Stephen Colleran here, a friend of Burke's, and he remembered and
tells you that he heard some remarks made by Andrew Foy, and he
also heard the speech made by Thomas O'Connor, and he recollects
that three or four talked of the appointment of a committee to
investigate the matter alluded to in O'Connor's speech, but whether
it was a secret committee or not he does not remember."

PURPOSE OF THE SECRET COMMITTEE.

"You will bear that in mind in regard to Colleran, because I shall
not go into details with his evidence on this particular point, as
he touches another line of evidence in the case. Then Denis
O'Connor was called here, who says that he has belonged to the
order for fifteen or sixteen years, and he testifies that it was
charged in Camp 20, at that meeting to which I have referred, that
Dr. Cronin had read a report of the trial committee; he says Foy
had made a speech, that Captain O'Connor had replied to him in
another speech, and that he understood that a committee was
appointed. What for?" again exclaimed the State's Attorney, with
considerable emphasis. "To go up to visit Dr. Cronin's camp, he
says, for the purpose of ascertaining why he read this report in
his, Dr. Cronin's, camp. That we find in the record, gentlemen,
there is no dispute on that point. You will remember that these men
swear to that fact, men who were not willing witnesses for the
prosecution; they swear that they understood it was to investigate
Dr. Cronin and his camp as to why he in that camp had read a report
of that committee before which the charges had been tried before
the ex-executive body. That is from the mouth of Denis O'Connor.
But he tells you that he did not understand it to be a secret
committee, but we called other witnesses on this same point."

Mr. Foster at this point broke in with an interruption. He called
the State's Attorney's attention to the fact that the record will
show that Denis O'Connor had not said that the committee had been
appointed to investigate why the report had been read, but to find
out if a minority report had been read there, and, if so, what it
was.

State's Attorney Longenecker asserted that he was correct in his
statement of the evidence. Mr. Foster, no doubt, on
cross-examination had made a speech to Denis O'Connor, and asked
him if that was not so, and Denis said yes; but he had stated
directly the testimony of the witness on direct examination. "After
Denis O'Connor testified," continued State's Attorney Longenecker,
"we called to the stand Henry Owen O'Connor. He testifies that he
was there, and heard a discussion between Captain O'Connor and Foy,
and he tells you that there was something said about a committee,
and that he offered an amendment thereto. We have the resolution
read here before you by the secretary. Henry Owen O'Connor says,
however, that he left soon after, and he did not know that a
committee had been appointed until afterward. I shall speak of the
evidence of this witness in relation to another matter, and to
other meetings, later on. I shall now read to you the evidence of
the next witness whom we called in the case, Thomas F. O'Connor."

The State's Attorney then read the evidence of Thomas F. O'Connor,
as already published, relating to a speech made by Andrew Foy in
Camp 20 on the night of February 6, and his reply thereto, in which
he had made the now famous assertion that he had heard the report
of the Buffalo trial committee, and that he knew that the
ex-executive had squandered the funds of the organization and sent
its members to prison, and finally Coughlin's motion to appoint a
secret committee to investigate the reading of the report in
Cronin's camp.

THE MEETING OF FEB. 8.

The State's Attorney, resuming, said: "The next man we called to
the stand was John Collins. He, too, tells you that he remembers
Foy's speech and O'Connor's speech, and that a secret committee was
ordered appointed. On that point, gentlemen, we have ten witnesses,
all of whom have testified in regard to the call for the
appointment of a secret committee on the night of Feb. 8. That was
the night when this conspiracy began. Remember that Foy had made
his speech claiming that there were spies in the order, and
charging that there were other Le Carons in the country. Following
that O'Connor had made his speech on the other side, the two
factions had met. Thomas O'Connor had stated that the ex-executive
body had squandered the funds, that they had put patriotic men
behind prison bars, and that the camp had better give their
attention to the executive body than to any statements regarding
spies or Le Carons in the country. Denis O'Connor, Kelly, Ford and
others all agree in telling you that it was in Dr. Cronin's camp,
or in reference to Dr. Cronin's camp, that these remarks had been
made."

The State's Attorney then called the attention of the jurors to the
resolution passed on that occasion, and which had been read by the
secretary from the witness-stand. He also called attention to the
amendment proposed by Henry F. O'Connor to that resolution. The
motion called for an imperative demand for action by the district
officer, and the amendment was that the district officer's
attention be called to it and asking for instructions. The State's
Attorney, continuing, said, he would wish to direct the attention
of the jury to the evidence bearing upon the utterances of Patrick
O'Sullivan, a member of the Lake View camp.

They had it on the testimony of A. J. Ford that Patrick O'Sullivan
had charged that in Lake View they were taking in deputies. He had
charged that they had taken in men who belonged to what was called
the Union Order of Deputies, and in statements made that night in
Camp 20 to the same effect. Mr. Ford and others had given Patrick
O'Sullivan as authority on that subject. It was in evidence here
that Dr. Cronin had organized a camp in Lake View, to which this
man, O'Sullivan, also belonged, and in the organization of which he
had taken part; there was no evidence here that any other camp was
organized in Lake View except the Washington Literary Society, and
this was the camp, Cronin's camp, into which Patrick O'Sullivan had
charged that members of the United Order of Deputies were being
admitted. It was upon this statement of O'Sullivan's that Ford's
speech was founded, and that he made this statement that he feared
the organization would be broken up.

Mr. Longenecker then alluded to and read the resolution passed on
this subject.

"Now," continued the State's Attorney, "Captain O'Connor has taken
the stand here--and the defense did not dare to cross-examine
Captain O'Connor upon that proposition--and swore that the motion
to appoint a secret committee was made by Daniel Coughlin. The
defense did not dare to put a witness upon the stand to swear that
that motion was made by any other person than Daniel Coughlin, and
that statement stands here uncontradicted. He swears that Daniel
Coughlin arose and moved that a secret committee be appointed. Now,
in all organizations where a committee is moved, the mover is made
chairman of the committee. If any of you ever belonged to an
organization, and if you ever do belong to an organization, you
will know that when a motion is made for the appointment of a
committee, if the man in the chair understands parliamentary rules,
he makes the mover for a committee chairman of the committee. Bear
that in mind. In this case Captain O'Connor says that Dan Coughlin
moved that this secret committee be appointed and that Thomas
Murphy, who did not dare take the stand, seconded that motion.
Thomas Murphy, you will remember, gentlemen, is the treasurer of
the organization. Daniel Coughlin moved, and it was seconded, that
a committee of two or three be appointed by the senior guardian to
investigate this statement of Captain F. O'Connor. Why was this
investigating committee appointed? Denis O'Connor and others tell
you that it was known at the time that Dr. Cronin was the man who
had read the report of that trial committee. They all knew that
Cronin had acted as a member of that committee, they knew he had a
separate report, the minority report; that he had condemned this
executive body; that he had charged the funds of the organization
had been squandered; then, for what purpose, I ask again, was the
appointment of this committee proposed?"

The State's Attorney again impressed upon the jury the fact that
Daniel Coughlin had for years been a personal enemy of Dr. Cronin,
the man whom it was proposed to investigate, and that this same
Coughlin, who so hated Cronin, was the man who had called for the
appointment of a secret committee to find out just what it was
admitted they all knew at the time. It had been claimed by counsel
for the defense, and it no doubt would be claimed that this
committee was not appointed to try Dr. Cronin.

THE MURDER OF DR. CRONIN.

"Of course they were not appointed to try him, gentlemen,"
exclaimed Mr. Longenecker, vehemently, "and they never did try him,
for they never gave him a chance for his life. We don't contend
they even went through the formality of a trial, but that this
committee was appointed; that it acted; and that the result of its
action was the removal of Dr. Cronin, we have no doubt. Now
gentlemen," continued the State's Attorney, "the learned counsel
who has more exceptions, and 'I object,' and 'wait a minute' in the
record than he has evidence of the innocence of his clients, said
that I was very tenacious about dates. I am. He called your
attention to the fact that I had stated in my opening speech that
dates would cut a figure in this case. They will. This was on the
8th day of February that this committee was ordered, and this, mark
you, on the motion of a man who was an enemy of Dr. Cronin. The
records, as shown by Patrick Henry O'Connor, show that Martin Burke
was there, Patrick Cooney was there, John F. Beggs was there, and
all these defendants on trial except P. O'Sullivan and Kunze. The
record shows that. And now, before I forget it, remember, because I
don't want to neglect defendant Kunze in this case, remember that
if a conspiracy has been organized to do a certain thing--if there
is a conspiracy to do a certain crime--whoever shall have joined
that conspiracy has become a party to it, and they are bound by the
acts committed prior to their joining the conspiracy and are
involved in it as much going in the last hour as if they went in
the first hour."

HISTORY OF THE CONSPIRACY.

"Now on this occasion, on the 8th day of February, we have Martin
Burke, Daniel Coughlin, John F. Beggs, all present at this meeting,
and on this night also Martin Burke was appointed a committee of
one, as shown by the secretary's books, to pass upon the
qualifications of Danahy's bartender (who swears to an alibi for
Burke) for admission into the order. They were getting in their
friends then. This was on the 8th of February. On the 16th of
February John F. Beggs, senior guardian of this camp, wrote a
letter to Spelman, the district officer, and on the 17th of
February Spelman, the district officer, answers that letter, in
which he says he knows of no authority under the constitution that
authorizes him to inflict a penalty on a member who has committed
the offense referred to by Beggs. Recollect, gentlemen, they talk
about penalties; that he knows nothing in the constitution by which
he is authorized to inflict a penalty. From these letters it will
be seen that Mr. Senior Guardian Beggs had directed Spelman's
attention to Dr. Cronin's camp, showing that he knew that it was in
Cronin's camp that this minority report had been read, and to
'investigate' which the secret committee had been proposed by
Coughlin. On the 18th of February John F. Beggs writes (and I will
read you the letter) that he does not know of any 'written' law of
the organization which authorizes the infliction of a penalty. On
the 19th day of February Mr. Simonds appears and rents a flat and
furniture is bought, and on the 20th the carpet is nailed down in
the room on Clark street. 'Dates will cut a figure in this case.'
This was all done in the month of February. On the night of the 22d
of February this man (Coughlin), who moved to appoint that secret
committee, already beginning his work as chairman of the committee,
tells Henry Owen O'Connor that they have another Le Caron, and he
says he has got it from good authority that it was Dr. Cronin who
was the spy among them, and Mr. O'Connor would not hear any more
and left him."

At this point Mr. Longenecker's attention was called by associate
counsel for the defense to the fact that the words of Coughlin
alluded to occurred on March 1 and not on February 22, and he made
the necessary correction.

THE BEGGS-SPELMAN LETTERS.

"Now," continued Mr. Longenecker, "let us see whether there is
anything else shown by these letters that passed between Beggs and
Spelman. In the first place let us ask ourselves what was there to
write about to Spelman if the object of the whole 'investigation'
arising out of Thomas O'Connor's speech was to find out 'why'
Cronin had read that minority report. There was no need to make any
fuss about that. But suppose they wanted to create the belief that
there was in the organization a man who was a spy or traitor, and
that they wanted an excuse for killing him--that would be a very
different matter."

The State's Attorney then proceeded to read to the jury the first
letter written by Beggs to Spelman, dated Feb. 16. In this letter
Beggs says: "It is charged that the senior guardian of Columbus
Camp, at a recent meeting, to the assembled brothers read the
proceedings of the trial of the executive at Buffalo." Mr.
Longenecker compared this passage of Beggs' letter with the motion
of Henry Owen O'Connor, carried by Camp 20, directing the senior
guardian to notify the district officer "of the report going around
regarding reports of the trial committee being read in one of the
camps of this city."

"That motion was carried by the camp," said Mr. Longenecker, "but
it seems that Mr. Beggs had found out what camp that report had
been read in and all about it before he wrote as directed to Mr.
Spelman."

Having alluded passingly to the passage in Beggs' letter protesting
against the initiation of members into camps before their names
were presented to Camp 20 and the central officers for
ratification, which he said was in line with O'Sullivan's charge
that U. O. D. men were being admitted to Cronin's camp, Mr.
Longenecker took up Spelman's reply to this letter of Beggs. In
this letter, which was dated Feb. 17, Spelman asked Beggs to refer
him to that section of the law by which he was empowered to inflict
a penalty on a senior guardian for disclosing the proceedings of a
trial committee.

In this letter also Mr. Beggs refers to "certain men who want to
lead in Irish affairs" as "scamps," and says he "is disgusted with
their conduct." The reply of Beggs to this letter, dated February
18, was then read. In this Beggs says he knows of no "written law"
under which a penalty could be inflicted for the offense alluded to
in his first letter. "No man in his right senses," he declared,
"would deny that such conduct was prejudicial to the good of the
order." Mr. Beggs in this letter also deplores the "opening of the
old sore," and says that as the majority of the members believed
"the parties charged to be innocent," created ill feeling and
blasted the hopes of the friends of Irish unity. Beggs also said he
would not notice the matter alluded to, as he thought it better not
to notice such matters, only he was ordered to do so by the vote of
the camp. "But I am only one man," said Beggs, "but the men who are
in power will in time realize the motives of those who are
continually breeding disorder in the ranks. I am very much
discouraged at the present outlook, but hope no trouble will result
in the meantime."

Mr. Longenecker asked significantly what Beggs was talking about in
this latter portion of his letter. A comparison of his utterances
with the evidence of Thomas F. and Henry Owen O'Connor showed that
Beggs was referring to Cronin, and to the report which he had read
in his own camp, charging the ex-executives with being thieves and
robbers and with putting Irishmen behind English prison bars. What
did Spelman mean when he said he had hoped for a reunion and for
better results? To whom did Beggs refer when he spoke of "these men
who are continually breeding disorder in the ranks?" It was evident
that they were talking about Cronin.

"On the 22d of February," continued the State's Attorney, "when
Patrick McGarry made the same charge that this ex-executive was
composed of thieves and robbers, at the reunion meeting John F.
Beggs stood up and said he would not submit to any such charges
being made in his camp, and he slapped his breast and thanked God
that he was a friend of Alexander Sullivan's.

"On the 19th of February, Throckmorton said the man named Simonds
came there and inquired and rented the flat at 117 Clark street.
Now we have a meeting on February 22d. You recollect what Patrick
McGarry stated at that meeting, and, for the purpose of showing you
just what he did say, I would like to read from the record, but,
after glancing through the papers on the table, I fear I have
neglected to bring it from my office."

Judge Longenecker had now spoken for over four hours, and a recess was ordered until ten o'clock on the following morning (November 30), and at that hour the State's Attorney resumed his speech, as follows:

"If the Court please, and Gentlemen, Mr. Foster was right in regard
to my statement about Spelman. It had reference to the circular
letter which he said was not addressed originally to Beggs, and
that evidence had nothing to do with this case.

"On yesterday evening I wanted to call your attention to what was
said and done on the meeting of the 22d of February--this reunion.
You remember that Mr. Beggs spoke of it in his letter to Spelman;
not to forget their reunion. At that meeting speeches were made by
different parties, and among them Patrick McGarry made a speech,
and John F. Beggs, the senior guardian of Camp 20, answered that
speech. You may not remember just what was said on that occasion. I
will now read just what Patrick McGarry said about it."

Judge Longenecker proceeded to read from a typewritten manuscript
the testimony of Patrick McGarry as to what occurred at the meeting
of Camp 20 on Feb. 22.

"'Four gentlemen had spoken,' Mr. McGarry testified, and referred
to the unity that ought to exist in the organization. It was about
the time that Le Caron had testified before the Parnell commission
in England and the other gentlemen had referred to spies getting
into the organization. On the 8th day of February, on the occasion
of moving the appointment of the committee, Foy talked about spies
in the organization. Mr. McGarry spoke of how Irishmen coming to
this country and becoming American citizens ought to educate their
children. That was good talk. How they should educate them first in
the principles of American institutions; that was good. How they
should educate them also to have love for their mothers and fathers
and forefathers' homes; that there was nothing in the Irish race
and nothing in Irish history that Irishmen should be ashamed of in
America; that is true."

The State's Attorney proceeded to recite the testimony of McGarry,
as before published, in regard to the speech that he had made at
this celebrated reunion meeting at Camp 20.

"'I said I agreed in my remarks with what all three gentlemen had
said. I said it was all very well to talk of unity, and I wanted to
see unity among Irish people; that there could not be unity while
the members of this organization would meet on dark streets and
back alleys to villify and abuse a man who had the courage to stand
up and attack the treachery and robbery of the triangle. I said
that I was educating children, and as long as God allowed me to be
over them, I would educate them first in American principles, and I
also wanted to educate them that, if they got an opportunity to
strike a blow for Ireland's freedom, they would do so. I told them
that I had been investigating Le Caron's record, and I said there
were men in this organization that were worse than Le Caron. I 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. I said that I had found out that Le Caron's camp did not
exist for two years, and they did not have a meeting, and the
junior guardian, as given in the directory down in Braidwood, had
been for a year at Spring Valley, and I said that they must have
known that such a camp could not exist only on paper.'"

Judge Longenecker went on to review the testimony of McGarry in
reference to this famous meeting, and next called the attention of
the jury to the conduct of John F. Beggs, the senior guardian of
Camp 20, on that occasion.

VIOLATIONS OF CAMP RULES.

"'Now remember,' he said, 'that Alexander Sullivan's name had not
been mentioned; the triangle had not been mentioned, and John F.
Beggs said that visiting members were coming in there and violating
the hospitality of the camp, and that would have to be
stopped--that it was cowardly,' and, says McGarry: 'I wanted to
interrupt him, but the presiding officer and chairman at that time
would not let me interrupt him.' When he used the word coward, he
said that they came in there talking about Alexander Sullivan, and
it was cowardly, and he said that they talked about a man behind
his back; 'why don't they say it to his face?' He said that
Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in that camp, and he slapped
his breast and said that he 'was one of them.' That was Beggs'
speech on the 22d of February--this same senior guardian, who was
called upon to appoint a secret committee to investigate why Dr.
Cronin had read a minority report in his camp charging Alexander
Sullivan and the rest of the triangle with squandering the funds.
On this occasion it was admitted that Alexander Sullivan was not a
member of the organization, but he was and had been a member of the
executive body--a member of the triangle--and Beggs having
mentioned his name in his speech, McGarry had charged this
corruption, and then it was that this man Beggs said he would not
submit to it, and that it was cowardly for them to talk about it.
He said that Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in that camp,
and he slapped his breast and said: 'I am one of them,' 'I wanted
to get the floor to reply to him,' said McGarry; 'I said the
gentleman had said it was cowardly, and I wanted him to understand
that I was no coward; that I would tell Alexander Sullivan either
there or on any other ground what my opinion of him was, and that
every man who knew me knew what Pat was. I said, Why did you
mention Alexander Sullivan's name? I have not mentioned it; I have
not heard it mentioned here until the senior guardian of this camp
mentioned it. I have said, and I repeat, that the man who gave Le
Caron his credentials is a greater scoundrel than Le Caron could
ever pretend to be. I said I did not mention his name until it was
brought out, and then John F. Beggs said that Alexander Sullivan
had strong friends in the camp, and he was one of them, and that he
was for union and unity among Irish people if it took war to bring
it about.'

"Now this occurred on the 22d of February. The senior guardian was
then defending the triangle. Dr. Cronin had been charging the
triangle with misappropriation of the funds--and what else? He had
been charging them with worse than murder. He had been charging
that they not only robbed the treasury, but that they had sent
innocent men to English prisons; that they had sent men behind the
bars in order to protect their own thievery. He had charged upon
this triangle, as Thomas O'Connor stated in his speech, in his
minority report which he had read to his camp, the scoundrelism of
these men; and here we find this senior guardian"--and the State's
Attorney turned round and pointed to Beggs--"on the 22d of February
defending them and saying that they had friends and he was glad to
say that he was one of them. Now, gentlemen, remember that this was
on the 22d day of February, two days after the carpet had been
nailed down in the flat at 117 Clark street; five days after the
notorious letter that the senior guardian had written Spelman to
find out something that he knew all about--writing to this district
member to investigate a matter that he knew all about."

THE CONNECTION WITH THE MURDER.

"What else? We find that on the following meeting on the 1st of
March--it is in evidence here by Henry Owen O'Connor--that as he
was leaving the hall, Daniel Coughlin, the chairman of the
committee, followed him into the ante room, and said to Henry Owen
O'Connor, 'there are other Le Carons here among us.' He knew how
Henry Owen O'Connor's heart went out to Ireland. He knew how
patriotism burned in his heart; he knew that Henry Owen O'Connor
was loyal to his people. He thought by prejudicing him in that
direction he would surround their action with another friend. What
does he do? He says 'it is rumored around that there is another Le
Caron, and we have got it pretty straight that it is Dr. Cronin.'
This was on the 1st day of March, on Friday night.

"Singular, is it not? Here on the 8th day of February, the date on
which the motion was made for that committee--on the 16th of
February the senior guardian writing about it and on the 17th
writing about it; on the 19th renting the flat; on the 20th nailing
the carpet down, and on the 22d defending the triangle, and on the
1st of March this man, who is on trial now for his life, says that
Dr. Cronin is a spy. Why was this done? Why should he tell that he
was a spy? Following along on the same line it was uttered on
February 8 that there were spies in the camp; on the 22d they
talked about spies, and now it was whispered into the ears of Henry
Owen O'Connor that this man, Cronin, was a spy. They knew how the
Irish people despised a man who was pointed out as a spy,
therefore, he began his work of prejudicing the minds of those
Irishmen who were in earnest in reference to the freedom of
Ireland, and tells O'Connor that Cronin was a spy, but Henry Owen
O'Connor turned on his heel and would not have it and said: 'I
don't believe it,' and walked away. Now, what do we find? We find
this: That a conspiracy began in Camp 20 on the 8th of February.
Following that, as I stated, were the remarks made by this man
Coughlin, and remarks by Beggs. Now, we go on to another meeting in
this camp. Was that committee appointed? I stated on yesterday that
we did not contend that it was a trial committee. We never have
contended that it was wanted for the purpose of trying Dr. Cronin
or any one else; no such statement has been made, but that there
was a request for a secret committee, is undisputed.

"Now was it appointed? We find that either on the 3d of May or on
the 10th--that does not matter--one of the witnesses, I think Henry
Owen O'Connor, states that it was on the 3d of May, soon after he
came home from the East, there was a meeting. On cross-examination
by Mr. Foster, his attention was called to the matter that he was
investigating as a committee-man in regard to auditing the books,
and by that he thinks probably it might have been the 10th--the
following meeting. That does not matter; but Nolan, the other
secretary, the one who keeps the names and numbers of the different
members and their accounts--the financial secretary--states that it
was on the night of the 3d. Here are two undisputed witnesses
uncontradicted by any man in Camp 20; not a man that dare lift up
his hand to God and say that these men have sworn falsely. Here
they come into court and make a statement that is undisputed. Was
the committee appointed?

"On the night of the 3d or the 10th--I do not care which night it
was--some one in the crowd asked the senior guardian if the secret
or private committee had reported. The senior guardian, with his
hand uplifted, said: 'That committee reports to me alone.' That was
John F. Beggs! 'Has that committee reported?' 'That committee
reports to the senior guardian alone.'

THE PLOT TO MURDER CRONIN.

"Had he reference to the trial committee? Why, no. They contended
they had been urging for that committee's report; would he have
made such a remark as that if it had reference to the trial
committee that tried the triangle? No, gentlemen, it had reference
to this secret committee that had been appointed by John F. Beggs;
and to show you that he had appointed it, on the 29th day of April,
over on the South Side of this city, as is testified to by his
friend Spelman, the district officer--on the 29th day of April what
did he say? He said, 'That matter has all been amicably settled.'
How settled? At the hour he spoke the cottage had been rented; at
the hour he spoke the arrangements had been made; at the hour he
spoke the sentence had been fixed; at the hour he spoke it had been
'amicably' settled--that was on the 29th day of April. Is there
anything in the camp that shows it was amicably settled? Has there
been a man to come here to say they visited Dr. Cronin's camp to
investigate why he read this report! Has there been a man that dare
come to the front and say that any investigation had been
made--that anything had been done? No. Then, why was it that this
man, Beggs, said that it had been amicably settled? Because the
committee had agreed that certain things had to be done, and that
they would be done, and therefore there was no occasion for any
further investigation. That is why he told Spelman on the 29th of
April that this matter had been amicably settled. It had been.

"Following that, when he says, 'That committee reports to me
alone,' it is no wonder he made that remark, knowing in his heart
what had been done; knowing the results that were to follow, no
wonder he said 'That committee reports to the senior guardian
alone.'

"Now, if he made that remark--that it was to report to him
alone--where is the man that will assert that there was no
committee appointed? We do not contend that there was a committee
appointed as provided by the constitution in a legitimate way in
their order. There is no such contention here; but that they
assumed to appoint a committee; that they did appoint a committee,
and that that committee was a committee of three. We contend that
that was done for the purpose of covering up the deeds of these men
that followed the appointment of the committee. You remember. There
is nothing said about the appointing the committee to try Dr.
Cronin--nothing is said about the appointing the committee to do
anything except to find out how it was that this was done. If it
had been intended to do anything in an honorable way--in a way that
they must, to be honorable to themselves and the society, and
appointed that committee as Denis O'Connor said, to go up and find
out about the matter and report back--then it might be considered
as of nothing. But they didn't do it. Tell me that it was 'amicably
settled!' What had they done in the camp? What report had been
made? What steps had been taken to investigate the matter? No one
knows except the senior guardian and his committee just what was
said or done."

THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY.

"Now, gentlemen, I shall not bother you by reading much law at this
time. As I stated, I want to go over the evidence, but at this
point I want to call your attention, before entering upon the other
evidence, to the Spies case. I will only read from the syllabus,
and leave the case for others who may wish to refer to it, either
on the side of the people or on the side of the defense. I want to
call your attention to the law of conspiracy as laid down in that
case." [Here Judge Longenecker read a long extract bearing on the
point that where two or more persons combine to do an illegal act,
they are all guilty, whether they are all present at the
consummation of the crime or not.] He then proceeded: "That is all
I desire to read you upon the law of conspiracy. We have talked
about Camp 20 and actions of this order, and we now come up to
another part of the case. You will remember that Throckmorton, of
the real estate agency of Marshall & Knight, on Clark Street, told
you that a man by the name of Simonds appeared there on the 18th of
March and inquired in reference to a flat. He wanted to rent two
rooms on the upper floor of 117 Clark street. The agent told him
they had two rooms on the floor below, and he said he didn't want
them--that he preferred to have those on the upper floor, fronting
on Clark street. You will remember that he stated that they could
not rent two rooms in that flat and he would have to rent the
entire flat, and the man said he would see Mr. Marshall concerning
it. Next day, the 19th, the man appeared again at the office, and
Throckmorton saw Mr. Marshall, who would not rent two rooms and
said he would have to take the entire flat. The fellow said all
right, and paid them $40 for the top flat, which, as you will
remember, was in the neighborhood of Dr. Cronin's office, just
opposite the Chicago Opera House building. You will further
remember that Throckmorton testified that the man pulled the money
out of his pocket in a careless way and paid $40. I don't know
whether he understood why he wanted the front rooms at that time,
but he paid a month's rent and signed a lease. Mr. Marshall
corroborates that statement."

THE PURCHASE OF THE FURNITURE.

"On the same day this man, J. B. Simonds, appeared at Revell's
store. Now, it does not matter whether we have shown that he was a
member of Camp 20 or any thing about it. It does not matter whether
we know who he is, but it is part of the means used in this case,
and for that reason it was admitted in evidence. He said to
Hatfield, the salesman, that he wanted some of the cheapest
furniture he could get. He was taken to the department where the
cheapest furniture is kept. He was quick and firm in his
selections. When he was shown a cheap bedstead he said, 'That is
all right; I will take that.' When he was showed cheap chairs, he
said, 'I will take them.' When Hatfield showed him other pieces of
furniture, he said promptly, 'I will take them.' Then he said he
wanted a cheap trunk, the largest in the store. They went to the
trunk department and they picked out a packing trunk of the largest
size. He said he wanted a common valise and a strap for the trunk.
These articles were all produced and he went away. That must have
been before the signing of the lease for the flat, because he comes
back the next day and tells them to deliver the goods. He picked
out the commonest furniture, stating that it was only for
temporary use. The next day he went back and paid for the furniture
and it was moved to 176 Clark street.