Chapter XXIII (4)

"He had been engaged with Coughlin for months. Mertes swears that
he saw him drive their horse with a white face up to the cottage
the night of the murder, and you will remember that he picked him
out from a number of men. Mertes is a countryman of Kunze's, and
he would not be likely to testify against his own countryman unless
truth compelled him to do so. He tells you that Kunze drove a horse
and buggy up to that Carlson cottage at 8:30 o'clock on the night
of the murder, and, more than that, it is in evidence that Kunze
was perfectly at home in the rooms at 117 Clark street, and was
seen by a very intelligent witness sitting in front of the window
washing his feet. Now, what was he doing at 117 South Clark street,
if he was not engaged in that conspiracy? The men who engaged that
flat at 117 Clark street, those conspirators, were not going to
trust their lives to men they did not know; and the truth is that
he was the tool of Coughlin. More than that, it is in evidence that
he said he expected to be arrested on the Cronin business. Why?
Why? I repeat."

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

"This man is defended by able lawyers," retorted Mr. Ingham, "and
on their heads is the responsibility of his defense."

"God knows I am innocent of the murder of Dr. Cronin," cried Kunze,
again springing to his feet, and there was a scene of excitement
for a few minutes. Finally his counsel forced him to his seat, and
induced him to remain quiet.

"Why did he say he expected to be arrested on the Cronin business?
I repeat," continued Mr. Ingham. "It was because he felt he was
connected with that business. Coughlin knew him, Coughlin had
worked with him, and Coughlin knew that in this case their lives
were safe in his hands. It is in evidence that shortly after the
murder he was with Patrick O'Sullivan drinking, and you will
remember a conversation which was detailed by a saloon-keeper, and
which occurred shortly before the murder, wherein Patrick
O'Sullivan made a bargain to sell to Kunze the bay horse with a
white face. Why was that horse sold to Kunze, this little painter
who was working around the country, this man who was in the employ
of the detective and trusted by Coughlin? Will you, gentlemen of
the jury, tell me why O'Sullivan, who lived at the rear of the
Carlson cottage, and whose stable almost abutted on the cottage,
was selling this poor painter a horse?"

WHOM THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

"I have gone over the salient features of the evidence, and I say
unhesitatingly that there is evidence which points directly to
Coughlin; it points directly to Patrick O'Sullivan, and it points
directly to Burke, unerringly to those three as having a direct
connection with the murder of Dr. Cronin. Are those isolated men,
scattered over the city, having no bond of harmony? On the
contrary, the evidence is that four of those men on trial were
bound together by a bond. Judge Wing said the murder in this case
was different from an ordinary case. He said truly. The motive was
not robbery; it was not personal hate, but it was hatred, political
hatred in its nature, growing out of a political conspiracy. That
conspiracy originated in Camp 20, and it is in evidence that Beggs,
Coughlin, O'Sullivan and Burke are members of that camp. There you
have the start of it. In the course of circumstances, Sullivan made
the contract which was to lure the doctor to destruction; Coughlin
told the chief of police and told Thomas O'Connor that his enmity
toward Cronin grew out of secret society matter and was of long
standing. Simonds buys the furniture, Burke hires the house--the
Carlson Cottage--and the full arrangements are made for the
butchery of their victim. It is also in evidence that Coughlin
wanted Sampson to slug the Doctor, and up to that time he had not
got to the pitch when he wanted him killed, but you will see how it
grew. The evidence shows he denounced him as a spy, and on the
Monday morning after the murder, when he admitted his enmity to the
Doctor, the Doctor's body was lying in the catch-basin.

"How about Patrick O'Sullivan? We find after the murder he goes to
see Mrs. O'Farrer, and she says to him it is an awful murder. He
replied 'Yes.' She then asked why did they kill him. Now, mark his
reply. He says: 'They say he was a spy and gave away the secrets of
the order to which he belonged, and if he did he should be killed.'
Here you have the conspirators of Camp 20 at work.

"Where did the trouble begin? Recollect that O'Sullivan says to
Mrs. O'Farrer when he was at her house that, 'They say Cronin gave
away the secrets of the order to which he belonged.' It is in
evidence in this case that the only secrets that Cronin ever gave
away were about embezzlement of the money and the sending of their
brethren to English prisons. You know also that it is in evidence
in this case that the very first hostility toward Cronin was made
apparent in Camp 20 of the Clan-na-Gael organization. There was
constant turmoil and trouble in the Clan-na-Gael organization
because of the embezzlements and the wrong doing of the triangle.
It is in evidence also that Dr. Cronin charged at the trial of that
triangle that they had embezzled over $100,000 of the funds of the
organization besides sending patriotic Irishmen into British
prisons. Whether that be true or false we have not been permitted
to show. So far as this case is concerned it is immaterial whether
true or false. You are an American jury; this is an American court;
these defendants are here under indictment, and you are called upon
to administer American law; and whether Dr. Cronin may have been a
spy or an honest man and a patriot cuts no figure whatever in this
case. One thing, however, I can say. When that sewer gave up its
dead, it opened up the sunlight of heaven on these charges. 'Cronin
was killed,' says O'Sullivan: 'he was killed because he gave away
the secrets of his order,' and I repeat the only secrets he could
have given away were the embezzlement of the funds and the
imprisonment of their brothers. His mouth was closed and his
charges were forever stopped by his death. That swollen and
distorted body, those mute lips, prove the truth of his charges
more clearly than any court or jury could possibly do, and if these
charges were not true there would have been no motive for them to
put him out of the way. Thomas O'Connor tells you he was present at
a meeting of Camp 20 when a man, Foy, arose, and said they had
better look out for spies, and there were other Le Carons among
them. He says that he made a speech to that effect, I may not give
you the exact details, and O'Connor said in reply that they had
better look out for the men who were embezzling the funds of the
organization and sending their brothers to English prisons. A storm
arose. The records of that meeting show three things: They show,
first, a resolution to the effect that hereafter no member should
be initiated whose name had not been submitted to all the camps.
They show, secondly, that a demand was proposed to be made on the
executive for information in regard to the Buffalo trial, that is
the trial of the triangle; and thirdly, that that was amended or
changed so as to read that information should be asked from the
district member.

"That record also shows the appointment, or passage of a resolution
for the appointment of a secret committee of three by the senior
guardian to investigate rumors afloat regarding the trial
committee. What were they? O'Connor has told you that the charges
were what he made, and he and others say that the camp where these
charges were made was known as Dr. Cronin's camp. Denis O'Connor
and others say they knew to whom Thomas O'Connor referred. To
investigate the matter of these rumors then meant to investigate
the men who put these rumors afloat. That man was killed, foully
slain, and his body thrown into the sewer. Now Beggs wrote to the
district member. Beggs asked the district member to investigate
certain charges. The first resolution of the meeting required him
to do that. The district member said he knew of no portion of the
constitution which was violated by an act of that kind, and he knew
of no section of the constitution which would enable him to inflict
a penalty. That letter of Beggs' when you study it, means this: 'I
do not want to do this, I would rather have nothing to do with it,
but I have been compelled to notice it, and these old quarrels must
stop.' And you will notice it is full of forebodings of dangers to
come.

"Again, subsequently, you will remember that Beggs replied at a
subsequent meeting that the committee--the secret committee which
he had appointed--must report to him alone. Then the practical part
of the business began with the appointment of that committee. It
was Beggs' duty to appoint that committee. Beggs did appoint that
committee. Beggs was an enemy of Cronin, as were the others. Beggs
denounced him as did the others. Beggs said after his death, 'O, he
will turn up; he is all right.' The others said the same thing.
They covered his body with the filth of the sewer and his memory
with the epithet of traitor. I said in an American court, before an
American jury, it made no difference whether the charges which
Coughlin made were true or false, it made no difference whether he
was a traitor or a patriot, but the truth of history demands that
the name of Cronin shall be vindicated, and it is vindicated more
strongly than it could be by mortal lips when you remember that
that vindication comes from the slime of the sewer on his body and
the production of his clothes, also from another sewer. They
murdered him because they feared his charges; they called him a spy
in order to nerve their dupes to kill him, and they slew him.
Gentlemen of the jury, I have now said all in this case that I
intend to say. It is needless for me to say more, as I shall be
followed by others of great ability. I simply ask you to do this.
Your duty is unpleasant, and the duties you have already undergone
have been onerous and burdensome.

"It is unpleasant for a man to sit on the trial of a fellow-man on
a charge involving his life and liberty, but it is your business to
do that in this case. As long as human nature is constituted in
such a way as it is, law will be necessary to make some men walk
straight. Crimes, murders, thefts and arsons can only be prevented
by the enforcement of the law. The law, as I said, can only be
enforced by the jury. On the call of Providence you are here now,
and your duty is before you. Recollect, gentlemen, that while your
duty is serious and burdensome, it is also of vast importance.
Remember, gentlemen, that your duty is just as important and as
necessary, and the necessity for courage and determination to carry
out that duty is as great as it would be upon the battlefield or in
any other walk of life. Deal with these men justly, execute the
law, satisfy your own consciences, and the rest of us will be
satisfied."

* * * * *

COUNSELOR DONAHOE TALKS.

Mr. Ingham was followed by Mr. Donahoe, who spoke in behalf of
O'Sullivan and Kunze. He prefaced his argument with the remark that
there was no duty in the life of a lawyer that afforded him more
pleasure than to defend the innocent; and that, therefore, he began
to plead for the lives of his two clients with a heart as light as
that of a newly-made bride, caressed with her husband's love. It
was the apparent desire of the public prosecutor to disgrace every
witness, who appeared to testify to any fact or circumstance,
tending to show the innocence of the accused, but this course would
never deter him from exercising the best ability that God had given
him, in procuring for his clients every legal right known to the
law and the country. He urged the jury to banish all prejudice, and
to adopt reasonable judgment in considering the legal evidence of
the case and the laws of the country, and urged that if they did
so, his two clients would soon be breathing the free air of heaven.
The counsel drew attention to the fact, that he had been especially
assigned to the defense of Kunze by the Court, the prisoner having
sworn that he did not have a dollar, and also said that until the
opening of the present case he had had no connection with
O'Sullivan or any of his friends. There was nothing to prove, the
counsel went on to argue, that Kunze was in any way connected with
the crime. The young man who claimed to have seen him wash his feet
at the window of the Clark street flat, as well as the
saloon-keeper, whose place he was alleged to have visited on the
night of May the 4th, might easily have been mistaken. It was, in
brief, a case of mistaken identity. Mr. Donahoe argued at length,
with a view of showing that the testimony regarding the
identification was at all times questionable, and should be
received with a great degree of caution, and quoted numerous
authorities to illustrate the fact that his theory was correct.
Proof of criminal intent, he said, was absolutely necessary, and
that that was proof absolutely lacking. Mr. Donahoe concluded his
speech in these words:

"Gentlemen, I am about to say the last words for my clients. Their
welfare is in your hands. I am satisfied that if you banish from
your mind everything but the law and the evidence, in this case,
you will unlock the prison door and let them go about their
business, earning their bread by the sweat of their brows.
Something was said in this case, some discussion in your presence
about Alexander Sullivan. There is no proof that my clients know
Alexander Sullivan. If there should exist in your minds, or if
there has been injected into your minds, prejudice against that
man, for God's sake don't use that against my clients, two young
men whom the evidence in this case proves to be innocent. Yet the
law does not say that they require to show their innocence; the law
requires that the prosecution shall show their guilt. I have at
heart the welfare of Kunze, although he never gave me a dollar, as
much as I have the welfare of my client, O'Sullivan, who has
retained me in this case. Banish all prejudice and suspicion from
your minds; apply your reason and judgment and consciences to the
law and the evidence in this case, and I am sure, then, that these
young men will be acquitted, as they ought to be. Remember that in
your hands rests the lives of these men. Remember that one day you
will be called upon to give an account for every act and deed done
in this life. Let nothing that you shall do in this case against my
clients be such as shall be charged against you when you appear
before that tribunal of the Most High, and when you are asked 'How
have you dealt with your fellow-men?' don't have to say that when
dealing with your fellows you had bloody hearts. Merciful! The more
merciful a man is, the more godlike he is! But, gentlemen of the
jury, do not misunderstand me. Do not think that I am asking for
mercy for my clients. Oh, no; not at all; not at all. I ask that
you carefully weigh this evidence, consider the law, be governed by
the legal evidence and the law, and that is all that I ask you to
do. I believe that if you banish everything from your minds but the
law and the evidence in this case, that the God that gave you a
head to think and a heart to feel for your fellow-men, the God that
gave you an existence, will never permit you to strangle my
clients. Oh, no, unless you are ready to guess them into eternity,
you can't convict them on this proof. I tried this case fairly. I
have treated every witness fairly, I have been respectful to the
Court, and I have been respectful to you. These two young men's
welfare, their lives, are confided to your hands. For God's sake,
for their sake, for your sake, make no mistake. Gentlemen, I thank
you."

* * * * *

HYNES' GREAT EFFORT.

The announcement that Mr. W. J. Hynes would commence his argument
at the opening of court, upon the day following the conclusion of
Mr. Donahoe's address, had the effect of attracting an immense
throng to the Temple of Justice. Hundreds were admitted, while
thousands were unable to gain entrance to the court-room. Judge
McConnell took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock, and Mr. Hynes
immediately commenced his address. He said that in what he had to
say he would endeavor to be fair. He knew the importance of the
great proceeding of the character under consideration. He knew
that, no matter how guilty men might be, under the civilization of
a century, punishment was to be visited only under due process of
law. For three months or more the public time had been occupied in
hearing the accusations, trying the accused, considering the
evidence, listening to the arguments, through that protection of
the law for which lives have been sacrificed and rivers of blood
have been spilled, to secure to those charged with crime the
protection of the law. That protection of the law had been thrown
around the men on trial to see that they should have a fair
hearing, and that the jury should render a fair verdict. All
evidence that was not competent had been excluded, and, wherever a
question of doubt had arisen, His Honor, the judge, exercising his
natural instincts of mercy, had solved that doubt for the benefit
of the accused. Hearsay evidence had been excluded; the defendants
had been confronted by the witnesses who testified against them,
and all these forms of law, of civilization and justice had been
extended in the trial of men accused of charging a man behind his
back, of killing him behind his back, of killing him first and
accusing him afterward. Even such men as these, however, were
entitled to all the protection of courts of law, and to all the
safeguards which the law threw around them, because no human life
could be taken, no human liberty or freedom could be abridged by
a day or an hour, until the court of justice, the accusation
against the accused had been judicially ascertained and determined
by twelve fair-minded men beyond a reasonable doubt.

With this introduction, the learned counsel proceeded to review the
case from the day of the disappearance of Dr. Cronin. He declared
that the dispatches received at Chicago, from Canada, shortly after
the disappearance of the physician, and to the effect that he was
alive and in the flesh in the dominion, demonstrated beyond a doubt
that the defense was organized before the crime was committed. It
demonstrated, moreover, the existence of a wide-spread conspiracy,
the conspiracy of intelligence and brains, as well as of experience
in handling the telegraph and the press. John F. Beggs had said
that Cronin was not dead and would turn up all right, and if the
scheme of disposing of Dr. Cronin's body on the night of May 4th
had not been frought with some misadventure, some miscarriage of
judgment, the public, not understanding the motive which underlied
the occasion, would probably have believed that what Beggs said was
correct. If all the marks of the crime had been obliterated, if the
body had not been found, if it had been disposed of, the murderers,
and those behind the murderers would have continued to charge that
Dr. Patrick H. Cronin was a British spy, and that his disappearance
was to be accounted for upon the hypothesis that he had gone to
England to testify against Parnell. This would have been the claim.
It was to confirm the impression made upon the minds of some of the
"dupes" of the triangle, that the disappearance, as well as all
traces of the crime were to be wiped out, so that the story would
be accepted that Cronin was a spy, and a traitor to the cause to
which he had always allied himself and which he had sworn to
defend, and that he had violated his oath and crossed the broad
Atlantic in order to testify against his own country and in behalf
of England.

The speaker proceeded to dissect the evidence at length. He paid
particular attention to the testimony of the medical witnesses for
the State, urging that it was entitled to full credence, and that
the prosecution received all the aid of science that was possible.
Continuing, Mr. Hynes said:

THE DEFENSE OF THE PRISONERS.

"Now what sort of a defense--because I propose to deal with that
first--what kind of a defense is made by these five prisoners? A
defense that is not a defense is worse than no defense at all. A
defense that utterly fails, as this defense in my judgment has
utterly failed, leaves the case of the prisoners stronger against
them than it was when the State rested. You expect some defense
when an accusation of this kind is brought against men. You are
looking for explanations. You are hoping, like merciful men, that
every circumstance and every word will find an explanation
consistent with innocence, and when the defense fails to meet the
accusation and to furnish an explanation, then it is disastrous to
the defendants. The only defense that is set up here is the common
defense that is set up for the commonest criminal--the favorite
defense of an alibi. I am not here to abuse all the witnesses that
appeared to prove alibis for these defendants. I remember that on
the evening of the 4th of May Mrs. Whalen and Miss McCormick say
they went out of the house and were out until after 10 o'clock. I
do know that Miss McCormick said they went out about the time the
boys were getting ready to go away to the saloon. These boys that
went to the saloon fix the hour of supper all the way from 7 to
half-past 8 o'clock, fluctuating between 7 and half-past 8 o'clock;
that is the value of an alibi. In fixing the time, the human mind
does not go back, unless there is something special about
it--unless there is something at the time of the act to associate
the time with the act. That makes them a part of each other and
relating to each other at the time of the act; not by mere
recollection afterward.

"All these witnesses testify that Patrick O'Sullivan got home on
the evening of the 4th of May between half-past 5 and 6 o'clock. We
had the statement of Mr. O'Sullivan himself, made to Captain
Schaack--and he ought to know better than they--that he got home at
half-past 7 o'clock, a difference of an hour and a half or nearly
two hours in Patrick O'Sullivan's own statement when he talked with
Captain Schaack. He said he arrived home at half-past 7, and that
he was not out of his house that evening after he got home. They
all say he got home about half-past 5 or 6 o'clock--every witness
here. Who knows best, and what is the value of recollection as to
the hour when the thing occurred? They all, with the exception of
Mulcahey, swear that he was not out of his house after that
time--after supper; that he sat down for a time in the house and
then went to bed with Mulcahey. He, himself, feeling that he had
been seen out of the house that night, at least back in the alley
near the Carlson cottage, sent for Captain Schaack while he was
still a prisoner in the jail, and said he wanted to make a
correction of his former statement. He was out of the house that
night, he said, but only out to the alley in the rear of his barn."

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

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

"No," rejoined Mr. Donahoe, "he said he went to the rear of the
barn. I have got the testimony here."

O'SULLIVAN'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

"I have got the testimony, too," said Mr. Hynes, "and I will read
it. He said he went to the rear of the shed in the alley. Let me
call your attention also to the fact that Mulcahey, his room-mate,
does admit that he was out of the house that night about 8 o'clock
or half-past 8--out in the yard. Mulcahey fixes the supper at about
half-past 7 o'clock; so that he has him out in the yard about 8 or
half-past 8 that night, and not another soul in the house knew he
was out of the house. All of them swore that he did not leave the
house. Do I say that they perjured themselves? No; not all of
them."

"Do I understand you to say," interrupted Mr. Donahoe, "that
Mulcahey swore he was out of the house?"

"Mulcahey swears," replied Mr. Hynes, "that he was out at 8 or
half-past 8 in the yard."

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

"He swore to it in this court," retorted Mr. Hynes, "and I will
read you his testimony. It is perfectly proper, gentlemen,"
continued Mr. Hynes, addressing the jury, "for Mr. Donahoe to
challenge my statements. I invite him to do it--first, to correct
myself if I am in error, and, secondly, to show that I am right if
I make a statement of that kind. Here is Captain Schaack's
statement. Captain Schaack says: 'There is one thing I forgot; in
conversation with O'Sullivan I asked him where he was on the 4th of
May. He said he was on the ice wagon all day. I asked him what time
he came home in the evening, and he said 7 or 7:30. He had his
supper and went to bed about 8 or 8:30, and about 9:30 some men
came home, and he got up and let them in and went to bed again. I
asked him if he was positive that he was not away from his house,
and he said he was positive he was not; that he was in the house
all the evening. After he was in the jail he sent for me and I came
down to see him in the jail. He told me he had forgot to tell me he
was out of the house that night in the rear of the shed.'"

Here Mr. Donahoe objected, saying that nothing was said about
O'Sullivan's being in the alley. Mr. Hynes said that if he was
beyond the shed he was of necessity in the alley. A short dispute
followed, in which some testimony was read, which was finally won
by Mr. Hynes, who then continued:

"There is no more point about his being on one side of the shed
than on the other; the point lies in the value of the alibi. They
put young Knight on the stand and there is nothing that better
illustrates the value of an alibi than his testimony. They put on
Menahan and they both swore that the two Hylands came there on
Sunday afternoon about 5 o'clock. Knight swears that O'Sullivan was
in the house from a point of time between 4 and 5 o'clock on the
afternoon of Sunday, May 5, and that when the Hylands came in he
shook hands with them, and he was not out of the house from that
time until he went out at 10 o'clock that night, when it is
conceded that O'Sullivan was down at Mrs. Conklin's at that time,
and did not get home until half-past 7 or 8. And yet they could put
Knight on the stand--honestly swearing, because there was no proof
that he was swearing falsely--honestly swearing and insisting,
under Judge Longenecker's cross-examination, that O'Sullivan was
not out of the house from 4 or 5 o'clock until 10 o'clock that
Sunday night. But everybody knows he was out. He was with Detective
Murray down at Mrs. Conklin's. Everybody concedes that he did not
get home until half-past 7 or 8 o'clock.

WORTHLESSNESS OF THE ALIBI.

"Now, there is the value of an alibi. Knight says that the two
Hylands got there between 4 and 5 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and
were in the house and did not leave until about 10 o'clock. The
tall Hyland said nothing about their leaving O'Sullivan's house in
the afternoon. Recess came, and I wondered where the memories were
put together, and the fact was recalled that it had already
appeared in the evidence that O'Sullivan was down at the Conklin's
house at those hours. When the Smaller Hyland went on the stand in
the afternoon he said they went there between 4 and 5 o'clock. He
said O'Sullivan was not at home and they went off to a ball game
and did not return until about 7:30 in the evening. Others of
O'Sullivan's household testified to the same state of facts. Knight
swears that the Hylands never left the house that Sunday
afternoon--that they were there all those hours and he was in the
parlor talking to them. Menahan swears that the Hylands came there
about 5 o'clock, and that he did not believe he was out of the
house except a few minutes when he was only around the yard. Every
time he went back to the house the Hylands were there, and he said
he knew they did not leave the house except to step out of the door
for a moment. But were they at O'Sullivan's that afternoon? There
is the value of their alibi. Would not the alibi for the Hylands be
just as good as their alibi for Saturday night? Would not their
alibi for that Sunday afternoon when O'Sullivan was down at Mr.
Conklin's with Detective Murray, be just as good as the alibi for
Saturday night? An alibi defense! But there is nothing tells better
upon the alibi than O'Sullivan's own testimony. Those people swear
he was home, covering the time when old man Carlson testified that
voices were heard in the Carlson cottage at 7 o'clock. Mr. Carlson
said he saw Martin Burke come out of the door at 5 o'clock on
Saturday afternoon and spoke to him, and Burke said: 'I guess it is
not too early to fix up,' and old Jonas said: 'I guess not.' Burke
went in, and he came out again at 7 o'clock, and old man Carlson
heard the voices of some men inside the cottage. And it was old
Jonas who testified that Patrick O'Sullivan admitted to Captain
Schaack that he got home about 7 or half-past 7 o'clock that
evening. He did not get home before that, and he (O'Sullivan) took
his supper and went to bed.

"Now the others swear that he was home from half-past 5 or before 6
o'clock up to supper time, and was not out of the house once,
except, as stated by Mulcahey, when he went into the yard at
half-past 7 or 8 o'clock. O'Sullivan says himself he was out. I
don't care whether you put it as far as the shed, or the rear of
the shed, as Captain Schaack put it in his direct examination. The
fact that he was out and away from the house shows the value of the
alibi! I don't claim that O'Sullivan was in the house when Dr.
Cronin entered. If he was he was not immediately in view, because
the word sent to the doctor was that O'Sullivan was out of town,
and his card was presented, on which the Doctor would go and attend
to the business; it would not answer the purpose that O'Sullivan
should appear in the room the moment the Doctor entered. At least
he was not in the immediate view of the Doctor when he entered the
room, because his presence would have excited the Doctor's
suspicion. The Doctor certainly did not see him in that room, if he
was there, until after the door was closed behind him and after the
first blow was struck that Mrs. Hoertel heard.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN MEMORY.

"Now, gentlemen, such is the value of human memory. These witnesses
said they were there up to O'Sullivan's time of departure, and he
was at home at supper. You see their anxiety to be able to account
for O'Sullivan's whereabouts, and to be able to fix the time that
would answer his purpose. When Tom Whalen was put on the stand I
think I cross-examined him myself as to the hour in which he was in
the habit of getting home. 'Oh,' he said, 'at various hours,' but
it was finally narrowed down to the fact that he got home about
6:30. He had to go about a mile and a half to his home, and he said
that he generally got there about 7. Then as soon as he saw that I
was endeavoring to pin him down to an earlier hour, taking the hour
he quitted work as a gauger, he said he would sometimes loaf around
the barn and talk ten or fifteen minutes with the men. He said also
that they generally waited supper for him after he got home. That
shows that supper was late. It appeared that the ladies went out
after supper. They say they went out on their own suggestion.
Probably they did. They were absent. I am glad they were absent,
but if they had not been they probably would have said they had
seen O'Sullivan that evening. O'Sullivan would say to them, 'Don't
you remember that I was here?' and they would not deny it, but
would believe it, and in their anxiety to help and save him they
would believe it surely and swear to it. That is all I wish to say
about those ladies. It was necessary to get supper late. Mrs.
Hoertel had seen a man standing between the two houses inside the
fence about 8 o'clock--probably five or ten minutes past 8 o'clock.
She saw a man standing between the Carlson cottage and the little
cottage in which the Carlsons lived. He was standing on the
sidewalk inside the fence--in other words, close to the back door
of the Carlson cottage; when she got on Roscoe street she saw the
man there. The question arises, was not that Patrick O'Sullivan?
and so supper is belated, and we have an attempt to show that he
was not out of the house. Mulcahey says that he was out of the yard
between 8 and 8:30 o'clock. I don't know anything about Mulcahey's
conduct or whereabouts that evening except what he told us. He was
O'Sullivan's bed-fellow, and his bed-fellow from the first night
that he arrived from those regions in Pennsylvania that have become
celebrated for crimes of this nature."

"I object and except to those remarks," cried Mr. Donahoe, angrily.

"You know the Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania," continued Mr. Hynes,
"down in that notorious valley."

"I don't think," remarked Judge McConnell, in a mildly
expostulating tone, "that we ought to refer to that, or draw any
inference from it."

"I think," responded Mr. Hynes, "I have a right to speak about the
locality from where a party comes, but I bow to your honor's
suggestion in the matter. At any rate, gentlemen of the jury, I can
argue from dates. He arrived here on the 3d of April, but on your
honor's suggestion I withdraw anything of that kind and wish the
jury not to consider it. It is not a thing I should refer to,
according to his honor's suggestion, and I don't want you to
consider it, but consider this, that Mulcahey was the first to
arrive on the scene here. Knight came afterward; Brennan came
afterward; I don't know when Boyington began to appear there, but
three men came to O'Sullivan's after Mulcahey arrived. He was not
working for O'Sullivan but he was taken right into O'Sullivan's own
room. Mulcahey says he was out about 8 or half past 8 o'clock. He
does not say he was out himself; I don't know whether he was or
not, but he says O'Sullivan was out in the yard about that time. It
was dark at eight o'clock on the 4th of May; that is, I mean it was
night, and as dark as it can be with the stars shining and a
quarter moon. The moon went down about 11 o'clock that night. It
was off in the southwest, nearly south at that hour. It was shining
in on the south side of the Carlson cottage. There was a man there.
They didn't know whether they had been seen or recognized or not.
They didn't know whether more than one man was seen or not. At any
rate, there is a confession that at that time Patrick O'Sullivan
was out of the house."

The speaker went on to consider the testimony of Nieman, the
saloon-keeper, and said that it was proven beyond a doubt that
Coughlin, O'Sullivan and Kunze were in the saloon late on the night
of May 4th. There was no earthly doubt about it. If there were, he
would ask that the defendants be acquitted. All the facts and all
the evidence tended to show that the saloon-keeper was accurate in
his dates and correct in his statements, and there could be no
mistake about it. The counsel went over Kunze's connection with
Coughlin, Coughlin's alibi so far as it related to the night of the
murder, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the curious Smith,
the identity of Burke with the man that rented the Carlson cottage,
and the connection of Kunze as a tool of Coughlin with the
conspiracy, and urged that every circumstance pointed conclusively
to the guilt of these defendants. The identification of Coughlin by
Mertes, the milkman, was beyond peradventure, while the telephone
messages that had passed between Coughlin and O'Sullivan showed the
extent in which they had been in commadeation. Numerous exceptions
to the statement of the speaker were made by Counselor Donahoe and
other attorneys for the prisoners, but the speaker proceeded
without paying apparent attention to these interruptions. The alibi
provided for Burke was shown to be unreliable, and the charges
against the triangle, the row in Camp 20 and the appointment of a
secret committee to try the physician were dissected at length. The
evidence of witnesses regarding the memorable meetings of that
body, taken in connection with Beggs' mysterious actions and his
correspondence with Spellman, of Peoria, showed beyond a shadow of
a doubt that the conspiracy to accomplish the ends of the opponents
of Dr. Cronin had existed.

Mr. Hynes proceeded to contend that "the trunk was bought and the
valise was bought, the scheme was designed of stripping the clothes
from the body for the purpose of hiding the corpse and of raising
the cry to satisfy those to whom Dr. Cronin had been denounced as a
spy that he had taken his leave and gone away to the other side of
the water to give up his information and deliver himself and all
that he knew into the hands of the British government. If his name
was once successfully connected with the word 'spy,' if plausible
proof were adduced that he was a spy for the British government,
these lies, accusations against the triangle, would be as idle as
the wind. His fate would have been regarded as no more than just by
Irishmen devoted to a cause which they believed to have been
betrayed. It was the interest of the reputation of the men who were
attacked on a charge upon which he had collected evidence; it was
the interest of the suppression of the conclusion he had arrived
at; it was the interest of the men who were exposed by the honest
investigation and courageous report; it was the interest of these
men that Dr. Cronin should not be understood to be murdered in this
country, because to be murdered here was to confess the truth of
his charges. If those charges were untrue, if they were without
foundation, if there was anything wanting in the evidence of them,
gentlemen of the jury, there would be no occasion for killing him.
No man was ever killed that way for a mere personal hatred. He must
have the evidence of these men's robberies and wrong-doings to
prove his assertions, and it was in the interest of their
reputation, in order that they might continue to plunder and rob,
and impose themselves upon a sacred cause, that his reputation was
to be attacked and his memory branded as that of a spy killed upon
British soil. The evidence in this case, gentlemen of the jury,
that immediately after the disappearance of Dr. Cronin we had the
assurance from John F. Beggs that he was all right and would turn
up. Then we had Mike Whalen, who testifies that the dispatches
showed he was seen here and there and elsewhere--that he had run
away, that he had gone away--where? Gone off to report to the
British government in London. That was the suggestion. It was not
sufficient. It was not sufficient that he should be killed, that
his life should be stricken out by a foul and cowardly murder
without trial and without warning, behind his back, that his sins
should be visited upon him, but his reputation must be stamped to
death, his standing among Irishmen must be assailed as a man
utterly and entirely fallen and disgraced and his character
generally arraigned and pilloried as that of a spy and a renegade
in the interests of those men in whose interests he was killed."

HOT SHOT FOR THE PRISONERS.

Mr. Hynes resumed his address at the opening of court on the
following day. He denounced the prisoners as members of a band of
blood-thirsty conspirators, and dealing with the case against
Beggs, urged that the whole of the testimony showed conclusively
that he was identified with the crime. The alibi for the white
horse was considered at length; the speaker taking the ground that
the identification of Dinan's animal by Mrs. Conklin and John T.
Scanlan, Jr., was conclusive. Continuing Mr. Hynes said:

"I call your attention to the fact that not from the opening to the
close of Mr. Donahoe's speech was one word said in condemnation of
the murder of Dr. Cronin--not one adjective used to describe it,
not one sentiment of dissent or dissatisfaction, disapprobation or
condemnation of that crime, that stands out as the blackest and
reddest of modern times. 'I do not know whether Dr. Cronin was a
spy or not,' says the representative of P. O'Sullivan, addressing
this jury, 'and I don't care.'"

"That is right," interrupted Mr. Donahoe, "I don't care anything
about it."

"No, sir," said Mr. Hynes, in an impassioned tone, turning around
and facing the attorney for O'Sullivan, "but as an officer of the
court, as a law-abiding citizen, as a member of this human family,
as a Christian gentleman, I hope, and as a man with the common
instincts of mankind--in mercy's name, in decency's name, in
humanity's name, find somewhere within the possibilities of your
character an impulse to denounce a murder so infamous as this, if
you dare to do it with your client's retainer in your hands."

"Not one word of condemnation, gentlemen," continued Mr. Hynes to
the jury; "not one word of defense in the memory of that brave,
courageous, honest man, whose only fault--a fatal fault--was his
honest courage, when these cowardly fiends assembled in their
numbers in that room, with a dim light, and after the door was
closed behind his back, his heart throbbing with sympathy for
anticipated suffering, with anxiety for the relief of human pain;
scarcely had the door closed upon his back, when these cowardly
murderers fell upon him from behind, and, like the miscreants they
were, beat out his life.

"Oh, gentlemen, what savagery and brutality is palmed off for
patriotism! Many and many a hot and rash act has brought calamity
and suffering and shame to the face of the Irish people, but in all
their history in the past, and in all the history that they can
make in the future, this will stand out as the one conspicuous
monument of shame, casting its dark shadow upon the reputation and
character of an honorable and generous race--a race who, as a rule,
sympathize with the suffering, sympathize with the weak, and are
rarely, if ever, cowardly. But that honorable and courageous
sentiment, when it is perverted, and when it is violated, the
higher the height of generosity from which it fails, the more
calamitous the break and the greater the destruction that it
causes."

Speaking of the discovery of the body and its condition, the orator
said: "The 'Agnus Dei,' the emblem of his faith and his religion,
was around his neck. I suppose that these men thought that they
were prompted by a religious sentiment, when they saved from touch
and left upon his remains the 'Agnus Dei,' the symbol of his faith.
I suppose these men think that there is a religious sentiment in
that. A sentiment that can beat out the life and violate the ten
commandments, and the divine decree issued from the mountain, 'Thou
shalt not kill,' and still leaves a religious emblem around the
neck, is but superstition; it is not faith; it is not religion; it
is not morality. And, gentlemen, do not think that it represents
the conscience of the Catholic. It does indicate one thing; that
the men who killed Dr. Cronin, stripped him of his clothes, and put
him in the catch-basin, had some respect for that emblem. That is
all that it indicates, and it simply helps to identify the men who
committed the murder. They would not desecrate it upon his neck by
tearing it from his dead body; they would give him that advantage
after they had killed him, as they thought. But they could bury
that emblem, that they thought sacred in a sewer."

Mr. Hynes concluded his speech in this form:

"Oh, there is no conspiracy behind! There is no citadel of crime,
your Honor," suddenly turning around and addressing the Court, "of
which these men are simply the outworks! There is no dark nest of
criminals behind these to be uncovered, and uncovered only in the
face of dire results of the awful crime that they have committed!

"And committed for what? What was the motive? Judge Wing appealed
to you, and Mr. Donahoe talked to you as if a prejudice of race or
religion had any place in this trial. Did it ever occur to any man
connected with the prosecution or the defense that any question of
that kind could enter into the breasts of this jury? Do you think
that Judge Wing or Mr. Donahoe has any apprehensions of that
kind--that these men should be punished because they are Irishmen,
or because he says they are Catholics? They may be Catholic in
name. I do not know whether they are Irishmen. Burke, it appears,
was born in Ireland, and Donahoe made a point when an inquiry was
made of Colleran, as to what county he was born in, and it appears
he was born in the County of Mayo. Why was that inquiry made?
Because Colleran was from Mayo, and it was simply to show that they
were neighbors and came from places within a few miles of each
other. Simply to show to the jury that we had to go to his friend
to get whatever information we could, and to show the earnestness
of that friendship. In that Mr. Donahoe discovers an attempt to
appeal to the prejudices of this jury against the County Mayo man.

"Gentlemen, Judge Wing solemnly submitted to you a proposition that
he did not know how you might feel as to the right or duty of an
Irishman, separated from the land of his birth, taking an interest
in the affairs of that land after he has become a citizen of the
United States. I am not here to criticise an Irishman's right to do
that; so far as I have anything to say on that subject it would be
for me to defend it, because our country, first, last, and all the
time, is for the right of humanity the world over, and where
humanity is suffering, and where liberty is trampled in the dust,
there I think is to be found the cause of the true devotee of
freedom. It is a natural thing that an Irishman, born in Ireland,
or even the son of a man born in Ireland, should take an interest
in that land and in its struggle for national recognition and for
self-government. There are very few American citizens who do not
sympathize with that effort. I justify every legitimate and
honorable endeavor of every Irishman to better the condition of his
native land, but let it be done as Washington did it; let it be
done as Emmet attempted to do it--in honorable, open, manly and
legitimate endeavor to establish self-government, and not by making
war upon defenseless men and women and attacking the lives of
non-combatants.

"For the past nine or ten years, when these acts have been charged
on the triangle, and when these lawless, fruitless and destructive
acts of the Irish cause have been charged against the triangle----

"I except to these remarks," said Mr. Donahoe. "There is no
evidence to that."

"I suppose that the speech of Tom O'Connor," said Mr. Hynes, "that
these men had been sent to English prisons, is not considered in
evidence by the gentleman."

"There had been conversation of that kind," remarked the Court, and
the objection of Mr. Donahoe being overruled, Mr. Donahoe took an
exception.

"I apprehend," continued Mr. Hynes, "there has not been a rational,
thinking and intelligent Irishman who has not recognized the fact
that every one of these acts was embarrassing if not destructive to
the cause of Ireland; that every one of them simply met as an echo
a new penal act or an act of coercion on the part of the English
government, and crippled the hands and silenced the voices, even,
of the true champions of Ireland making their fight under Mr.
Parnell. Anything of that kind, I am willing to join with Mr.
Foster in saying was a perversion of the purposes of the
organization to which these gentlemen belonged; a perversion of its
intent; a departure from its policy and its methods; and, as I said
last night, invented by them, not for the cause of Ireland or to
serve its ends, but simply as a means to excuse and cover up the
disappearance of money that had been stolen.