Chapter XXIII (5)

"Some allusion has been made by Mr. Donahoe to myself. I do not
propose to refer to it, except in one respect. What possible
personal motive could I have, except the motive that every citizen
should be actuated by, and that should control the conduct of every
lawyer engaged in the prosecution of a great case like this? Should
I fail in my duty when invited into this case by the State's
Attorney to assist him in its prosecution? Was the fact that I
first saw the light of day in the same land that Martin Burke did,
going to embarrass my conduct or to hinder me in the performance of
my duty in any respect? A scandal to my profession, and a shame and
reproach to my people, would I indeed be, if for one moment I
forgot my simple function of an American lawyer, in an American
court, before an American jury, pleading for the vindication of
American law. If these men, unfortunately situated as they are
to-day, have been personal enemies, I do not know them. I certainly
have no personal feeling; I contemplate them only with pain and
with regret and with shame. I never saw one of them before the
commission of this crime, except John F. Beggs, and I assure you
that although I had seen John F. Beggs, and had spoken with him and
had a very slight acquaintance with him, I did not know that the
man indicted under that name was the prisoner at the bar, until the
first day that I came into court here. Whatever relation I had with
him was not of an unkind character; so that I come to the trial of
this case free from the impulse of personal motive--having no
anxiety except an anxiety for the punishment of crime, the
vindication of the law, the maintenance of its majesty, the
sanctity of human life, and the punishment of the foulest crime
that has blotted the calendar of this State, or of any other State
of this American Union.

"Now, you have listened to me with patience; I thank you for your
attention through the desultory speech that it was necessary for me
to make after the exhaustive and able manner in which the people's
case had been presented to you by the two distinguished gentlemen
who preceded me, Judge Longenecker and Mr. Ingham. In leaving you,
gentlemen of the jury, and this case and my associates in it, I
trust I leave it without any trace of personal feeling toward
anybody--counsel or anybody else in this case. If, in the sharp
fight of a lawsuit--of a trial like this--under the spur of combat
at times, I have said or done anything that has wounded the
feelings or hurt the sensibilities of any man, no matter who, I am
sorry for it. I want you to take this case. It is a great case and
a serious case. There never was a greater nor more serious duty
devolved upon any twelve men on God's earth. It is as sacred and as
important as the duty of the soldiers who went out to fight for the
flag and maintain the unity of the States and the sovereignty of
the Constitution. I commit it to you with all its awful solemnity;
with all its awful responsibilities, feeling confident that in the
breast of every one of these twelve men beats the heart of an
honorable, honest, a patriotic and a law-abiding man; that your
verdict will be the verdict of your conscience--a verdict that your
consciences and judgments will approve and that the Court will
ratify, that God will sanctify, that will vindicate the law and
commit the guilty to a just punishment."

* * * * *

FOSTER'S PLEA FOR BEGGS.

At the conclusion of Mr. Hynes' argument, Mr. Foster, who appeared
specially in behalf of John F. Beggs, claimed the attention of the
Court. Among other things he said:

"Dr. Cronin was murdered. A more dastardly and heinous murder, a
more atrocious and cold-blooded murder, in my judgment was never
perpetrated. Are the gentlemen for the State satisfied with that?
In this connection allow me to urge you to pause and consider. You
remember what it is to which I refer. Whatever you may see of error
on the part of counsel, in the name of heaven don't charge it on
the head of his client. Don't charge the forgetfulness; don't
charge the investigation; don't charge the bad judgment of the
lawyer upon the head of the client he is attempting to represent.
The man who does not say that the murderer or murderers of Dr.
Cronin ought to be punished is a man whose friendship I don't
prize, and whose citizenship, in my judgment, we can get along
better without than with. Those are my sentiments; that is my
belief; but in the name of God, gentlemen, must an innocent man
suffer because of a crime which we concede as being perpetrated in
our midst? Are the minds of men to be inflamed, are men to lose
their reason by visiting vengeance on a man who is charged of the
diabolical crime of the murder which is being investigated here?

"These are the questions to which I direct your attention to some
extent. Because a man has espoused a cause, because a man is
identified with a clan which may not meet your approval or may not
meet mine, that is no reason, no excuse under heaven, why his life
should be destroyed. And I thank my friend, Judge Longenecker, for
the statement which he made at the very threshold of this case as
to what the issue involved really was. In his opening he used this
language in reference to the Clan-na-Gael Society: 'Remember that
we are not called upon to try the Clan-na-Gael organization; we are
not here to prosecute that organization or to defend it. If that
organization has no right to exist, then it is the duty of the
government under which it exists to take hold of it. It is not the
duty of those trying the criminal case to settle that question. As
I said, no matter what our feelings may be in regard to this, no
matter what our ideas may be about an organization formed to make
war with a country at peace with ours, we are not called to try
that question, and you are not sworn to try that issue.' Gentlemen,
every word of that is true."

Mr. Foster then went on to comment upon the questions relating to
prejudice on the part of the jurors put during their examination.
He said that those questions were proper and wise, because it was
needful to ascertain if they entertained any religious or radical
prejudice. Then he said: "John F. Beggs must be convicted of the
murder of Patrick H. Cronin, or he must be discharged. There is no
question here as to whether he is a Protestant or as to whether he
is a Catholic. There is no question here as to whether he is a
Clan-na-Gael or whether he is not. He is a murderer and must be
punished for murder or he must be discharged by your verdict. The
issue is simple--easy to understand. No intricate pleadings are
needed in this case; no intricate issues are involved. The plain
and simple question is, did John F. Beggs kill Dr. Cronin? Not
necessarily with his own hand, but was he a part and parcel of a
conspiracy to destroy the life of Patrick H. Cronin? Freed of all
rubbish, that question is left to your consideration and no other.
There are some things, gentlemen, of which I complain in this case,
and I believe I have a right to complain of them. The law in its
wisdom has provided means for the punishment of crime. One of the
most important offices in the State of Illinois, one of the most
remunerative offices is the office of State's Attorney of Cook
county. Why is that office sought for? Because it is honorable,
because it is remunerative, and the lawyers are few who would not
gladly assume the responsibilities of the office of public
prosecutor. The law not only provides for a public prosecutor, but
it provides for five assistants. Mr. Foster then referred to the
importance of having a competent and trustworthy man for this
office, and then remarked that it was singular that the State's
Attorney with his five assistants could not attend to the business
of the county." At this juncture he made it evident that he was
opposed to the appointment of Mr. Hynes to assist the prosecution,
for he said:

"No sooner was there an arrest made on account of the murder of Dr.
Cronin than war was declared in the opposing camps of the
Clan-na-Gael in Chicago. It was war to the knife, and the knife to
the hilt, which has been kept up incessantly from that time to
this. What was the first thing to do? Employ a good lawyer. Not
satisfied with the provisions of the statute to which I have
referred--not satisfied with the ability of my learned friend,
Judge Longenecker, and all his assistants, they looked for another
man. They cast about for a man of extraordinary ability to come to
the rescue and hang the lot of opposing Clan-na-Gaels, and as they
cast about for the man, he, who of all others is a power before a
jury, the man who first attracts their attention is the man who
last addressed you--a man whose home is in the courts--a man who
only lives to address juries, and by addressing juries and
courts--a man who can win cases before juries regardless of the
facts by the power of his ingenuity and his eloquence. That is the
man they want; that is the man they will have, who, in addition to
the power I have referred to, is a partisan in the conflict, an
Irishman and a Clan-na-Gael of the opposing faction. What other man
among the two thousand lawyers at the Chicago bar except William J.
Hynes, is the man to whom their attention is called?"

Having commented on the able arguments of Mr. Ingham and Mr. Hynes,
Mr. Foster said:

"All I desire that you should do, gentlemen, is this: After the
arguments are finished, when the silvery-tongued orator is done and
you retire to deliberate upon and consider your verdict, sit down
and wait until your blood is cool, sit down and wait until calm
judgment and cool discretion take the place of frenzied emotion,
before you act, and by your action commit a deed which shall haunt
you to your grave.

"Only a century ago Ireland blossomed as a rose. From the center to
the circumference of that beautiful isle the smoke-stacks opened
their black mouths toward the sky. Throughout the length and
breadth of the land the fires glittered and gleamed upon the forges
of industry, and everywhere the buzz of the spindle and the clatter
of the loom were heard. Among the illustrious names which history
gives us we find among them some of the grandest statesmen, some of
the most eloquent orators and most learned scholars that ever lived
upon this earth, either in times modern or ancient, were the sons
of the Emerald Isle. But how have the mighty fallen! Armed forces
have invaded the territory; the jury and the courts have been
superseded by the drumhead court-martial; coats of tar and feathers
have been resorted to; men, women and little children have been
publicly whipped; the parliament has been stolen away; the
smoke-stacks are cold and crumbled, and fires are out on the forges
and in the furnaces, and the spindle and the loom are still."

Counsel read selections from the address of John F. Beggs to
President Harrison at Indianapolis at the time he visited that city
with the Irish national committee, and also President Harrison's
reply to the address of the organization, and then said: "Do you
question for a moment the loyalty of the Irish people in America,
and would you condemn them for their loyalty to their mother
country? It is not charged in this case that the Clan-na-Gaels are
dynamiters. If it had been my brother Hynes is the only one
connected with this case who could give you reliable and full
information on that subject, because he is a dynamiter. It may
possibly have been that some men would think that by throwing a
little dynamite into England it would set Englishmen thinking
favorably of the project of that old statesman, Gladstone, to give
to the Green Isle liberty to govern herself. Or perhaps it might
have been regarded as a matter of retaliation for the suffering and
indignity which the sons and daughters of the Green Isle had
encountered for years. I do not know anything about it and
therefore shall not refer to it.

"Now, gentlemen, I have got an unpleasant duty to perform. I
realize the fact that when we step upon the narrow walks of the
city of the dead we are treading upon sacred ground. He who speaks
of a soul departed in any other than words of commendation had
better weigh well the purport of his language. Human charity is
ever willing to bury with the bodies of men all the evil which they
do, and remember only their virtues. That is commendable. That is
right. Yet, gentlemen, I say I have a painful duty to perform
because of certain expressions made by my client during the life of
the man whose soul is now in eternity, and in order that I may
protect his life I feel that I am justified even in censuring the
conduct of the man during life, who has passed into eternity. The
man who supposes or has supposed that Dr. Cronin, while here on
earth, was an angel in disguise, is very much mistaken. Now, is
that hard to say of a man who is dead? I hope you do not
misconstrue the purpose for which I have stated it, or the object I
have in view, but because my client has given his opinion while Dr.
Cronin was alive. I have a right to give it so long as my client is
alive in order that he may live, and that my language may be
understood and justified in every regard. Whether or not this is an
illegal organization, whether or not the dynamite policy existed as
stated by Judge Longenecker in his opening argument, whether or not
the purposes of the organization are to send dynamite to England
and there to destroy human life and the lives of men and women and
of children, as my friend says, I know not, but if that was the
object of the organization the most active member and the promoter
of the society and the purposes of the organization was Dr. Patrick
H. Cronin.

"To that statement I emphatically object," said Judge Longenecker.
"We wanted to prove the reverse of that, and that Dr. Cronin was
expelled because he bitterly opposed the dynamite doctrine, and we
were not allowed to do it. It is not right to make such an
assertion against a dead man, and, for one, I will not sit here and
listen to it. So far from Dr. Cronin ever taking a dynamite policy,
so far from his being an active member in furthering such a
purpose, we wished to prove that he wrote a circular bitterly
opposing the dynamite policy, for which he was expelled from his
camp. It is not right, it is not manly to charge upon a dead man
something that is entirely without foundation and opposed to the
truth."

"I claim that I have the right to argue that he was an active
member in that project," retorted Mr. Foster, "because the
gentleman shows that he organized camp after camp in this city and
organized them on one basis."

"And that basis was diametrically opposed to any dynamite policy
and also opposed to the triangle, which dictated that policy," said
Judge Longenecker. "If Cronin were here and could defend himself it
would be a different matter."

"I do not know of any testimony from which you can argue that there
was any dynamite policy, Mr. Foster," said the court. "I certainly
do not know of any such testimony, and therefore I do not think I
can permit you to proceed on that ground."

"It is in testimony that the dynamite policy of the organization
was approved, because they were all reunited," said Mr. Foster. "I
know what Hynes has said and I claim the right to reply to him
unless the gentleman for the prosecution particularly desires to
interrupt me. He does not disturb me at all but simply interrupts
me."

"I shall interrupt you just as long as you unjustly attack a dead
man who can not defend himself," said Judge Longenecker.

"There is evidence in this case, gentlemen, to the effect that
Cronin, in lifetime, did organize certain societies, and what that
evidence is I will read by and by. If I go beyond that evidence at
all, and state what I can not prove, I shall suffer by it, because
if I depart from the facts as you know them to be, any remarks I
may make will have no effect whatever upon you. I do say this, that
if it were not a dynamite policy, and the question was not whether
it was wrong to send dynamite to England, that it was wrong to
steal a hundred thousand dollars to keep in this country which
ought to have been spent in England, and sent there for the
destruction of the lives of men, women and children. Dr. Cronin
protested against that. Now, in the case of John F. Beggs, from the
commencement of this trial down to the present time, there has been
no objection taken before you. Where has been the concealment of a
fact? Where has there been any objection against testimony? Where
has there been an exception to the ruling of the court? Now, I am
not complaining because the learned lawyer objected and excepted,
but I say on behalf of my client that his life and connection in
this case in its ramifications has been an open book before you.
They called him before the coroner, and for hours he testified and
was examined by the coroner as prompted by my learned friend. He
was called before the grand jury and examined by the State's
Attorney and his assistants by the hour as to every fact within his
knowledge, as to every circumstance as to his whereabouts, and
everything their ingenuity could suggest. That was the reason why I
called my friend, Judge Longenecker, to the witness stand. I wanted
to show you, gentlemen, and I wanted you to know that this man had
been examined twice with reference to all the circumstances
surrounding him in this historic Camp 20. That examination had been
taken by a stenographer in shorthand in both places, and not a
single statement that John F. Beggs made on either of these
occasions has been disputed, and the gentlemen know it.

"I was impressed with the idea of my client's innocence the first
time I ever talked with him, and I am more than ever satisfied of
it at the present time. Where did they get those letters which he
wrote to Spelman and received from Spelman? Did he not send for the
chief of police, and tell them where he would find them in his
office, and yet the prosecution in this case makes those very
letters the foundation on which this jury is asked to take him out
and strangle him and destroy his life. The first thing that my
client is supposed to have said or done in connection with this
case, as alleged by a witness, that he said Dr. Cronin ought not to
be put on the trial committee to try Alexander Sullivan. It is in
evidence that Dr. Cronin made all the charges of embezzlement of
the funds, and the sending of the brothers to the English prison,
on which the triangle was to be tried, and would you, gentlemen,
like to be tried by a man you knew to be your enemy, whether it
might be for your life, your liberty or your property? You must
remember, gentlemen, that these facts complained of by Dr. Cronin
took place two years before Beggs was a member of the Clan-na-Gael,
and he spoke as he felt, and if the foundation on which he based
his remarks was true then his deduction was true, and you,
gentlemen, know that having made the charges of embezzlement and of
worse than murder against Alexander Sullivan and the triangle, he
was perfectly justified in saying that the Doctor was not a proper
man to sit on the investigating committee. It is charged by one
witness that Beggs is alleged to have said that Dr. Cronin was not
a fit man to belong to any Irish society. Why? Because Coughlin had
told him, and offered to make an affidavit to the effect, that Dr.
Cronin had admitted him to the secrets of the organization without
initiating him. It is claimed that Dr. Cronin was expelled from
Columbia Camp. Suppose he were, was he justified because he knew
all passwords and the grip and the ritual of the organization in
starting hostile organizations without any authority? It is in
proof here that one of his first acts after his expulsion was to
start a hostile camp with the same number and a name calculated to
mislead, for while he was expelled from Columbia Club, No. 98, he
organized Columbus Club, No. 96.

"How often do you hear the expression that a man is not fit to
belong to a church, or is not fit to belong to a political body?
Some of you gentlemen of the jury are Masons, others Odd Fellows,
and what would you think of a Mason, if in the judgment of the
lodge he was deemed a fit subject for expulsion, and who, after
being expelled and put out of the organization, went right across
the street and started a lodge of his own? He would have the
password, he would have the ritual. He would have all the necessary
forms and ceremonies and grips to enable him to start such a lodge,
and what would you say of such a man, especially if he named the
new lodge the same name as you gave yours? Counsel then referred to
the trial by the Presbyterian church of Professor Swing, and his
subsequent expulsion therefrom; to the trial of Professor Thomas by
the Methodist Church, and his expulsion therefrom for heresy;
charges which a few years before would have insured the burning of
those two men, then passed on to consider the disagreement in the
Episcopal Church which resulted in the formation of the Reformed
Episcopal Church, and inquired if the jury ever dreamed of men
being put on their trial in any of those churches for saying that
Dr. Swing was not fit to be in the Presbyterian Church, or that Dr.
Thomas was not fit to be in the Methodist Church.

"And yet," continued Mr. Foster, "the expressions they used were
the same as John F. Beggs is testified here to have used, and on
account of which they ask you to destroy his life. Beggs' statement
of his opinion giving the reasons upon which he made it, was
harmless, yet the gentlemen stand here and argue by the hour, and
ask you to find that Beggs was an enemy of Cronin because of these
expressions. Now, gentlemen, the evidence of John F. Finerty is
that Cronin was at that convention that appointed that trial
committee to investigate the old executive, commonly designated by
the name of the triangle. This is a point upon which we had some
dispute to-day, and I refer to it simply to show that I was correct
in my statement on that point. But the gentlemen have already
conceded that they were wrong and I was right. Now I say that these
were harmless expressions, and they are the only expressions which
have been shown in evidence, or of which any evidence existed. I
say existed, because if they ever existed anywhere they would have
been proven in evidence. That was all that Beggs ever said against
Cronin from the day of the beginning of the world down to the
present time. That was all. All that he ever said was the statement
that he ought not to have been on the trial committee which met at
Buffalo, and from the statements made to him, naming the man who
made them, that he (Cronin) had no business belonging to any Irish
societies. They say that he claimed friendship for Alexander
Sullivan--I shall refer to that hereafter--but did he ever denounce
Cronin? Never! Never! All the members of the organization have been
arrested, and brought to the State's attorney's office and
discharged, or brought here and sworn as witnesses, and not one of
them can say he ever heard a word--that he ever saw John F. Beggs
rise in his place and utter one word of denunciation against the
murdered Dr. Cronin.

"Gentlemen of the Jury, Beggs was right when he made that
statement. If you are going to hang him for that I may as well stop
here and now. Take him inside the narrow limits of the jail and
hang him, and let this farce end at once, and with it end the
institution which we term our glorious courts of justice."

Mr. Foster went on to say, that there was not one syllable in the
case from beginning to end to show that Beggs was not one of the
most consistent friends that Dr. Cronin ever had. No hatred had
been proven, no ill will shown. It was simply sought to convict
Beggs, because the testimony showed that Burke had gone to his
office twice in January and once in February. It was not now,
however, that he had ever gone there afterward, or that Beggs had
ever associated with him anywhere else. As for the proceedings of
Camp 20, it was simply unfortunate for Beggs that he had allowed
himself to be elected senior guardian of the camp. But for that he
would be walking upon the street and breathing the free air. Had he
had a headache on the 8th day of February, if he had a toothache,
if he had gone to the theatre with his wife, if any thing in God's
world had happened to him, except the chance that took him down to
preside for the first time after installation in the office of
senior guardian of camp 20, he would have been a free man that day.
There was no question about that, with no animosity toward Dr.
Cronin, and no ill will, and a clamor and a claim for unity and
peace was the offense that he had committed, and nothing more.

Mr. Foster concluded his speech on the morning of Saturday,
December 7th. He again reviewed the affairs of Camp 20, urging that
there was no proof of the existence of a secret committee, and no
evidence against Beggs. Stress was laid upon the fact that the
ex-senior guardian had set up no alibi, but that he had endeavored
to aid the State by every means in his power. In conclusion Mr.
Foster said:

"Now, there is another matter, gentlemen, to which I desire to call
your attention. I can imagine that an Irishman, with all the
hardships of his father in his mind, and all the hardships to which
he has been subjected, might feel as if he could take a dagger and
plunge it into the heart of a British spy, and then kneel down
before his God and ask a blessing of the Divinity upon him. But
John F. Beggs never believed that Dr. Cronin was a British spy.
John F. Beggs is not deserving of mercy if he stood at the head of
that cruel conspiracy to effect Dr. Cronin's murder. No words of
commendation, no thought of pity, not one syllable, would I say in
his behalf were he guilty of this atrocious and cold-blooded
murder, because John F. Beggs is the dupe of no man. He is the tool
of no man. He stands forth responsible for his acts, without a
mitigating circumstance if he is guilty. Therefore, I say to you,
gentlemen, in all candor and sincerity, you must either destroy the
life of John F. Beggs or else you must turn him free.

"Are you opposed to the execution of the death penalty? You and
each one of you have sworn that you were not. Are you waiting for a
murder more atrocious? In the name of heaven when do you expect to
hear of one? I am talking sense now. I am appealing to your reason
and your judgment. If John F. Beggs is guilty John F. Beggs must
die. Shame to the verdict, shame to the verdict, I say, which,
under the circumstances surrounding this case, would say, 'We will
not torture our minds and we have not the moral turpitude to hang a
man upon this evidence, but, by guessing and imagining and
speculating that he might be guilty, we will give him a term in the
penitentiary upon general principles and upon speculation.' Shame
to such a verdict as that. Humanity can stand no such outrage
perpetrated upon her citizens. I said yesterday that the conduct of
John F. Beggs had been an open book before you. Why, when the
organization of the coroner's jury was effected, one of the members
of Camp 20, Captain Thomas O'Connor, rushed to Beggs, as the
highest officer in the camp, and said: 'How about the secrets of
the organization? I have been subpoenaed as a witness.' What was
his reply? Was it concealment? Captain O'Connor, the most
prejudiced witness in this case against my client, the man who has
more feeling than any other witness against my client, is compelled
by truth to say that John F. Beggs said: 'Tell everything you
know.'

"Where was the concealment then? When the men who are interested in
the prosecution of the murder of Cronin, when the men who have
devoted the energies of their lives to the prosecution of these
defendants, in the finding out, the spying out and determining of
the guilty parties, go to the senior guardian, and say: 'What shall
we do when summoned before the officers of the law in regard to the
secrets of the society?' they are met with the prompt response:
'Tell everything you know.' No concealment. No covering. No
destruction of record. 'Tell everything you know.'

"How was it with Luke Dillon, who came from Philadelphia,
interested in the prosecution of this case, going home, whining
like a sick child, squealing like a stuck pig, because
investigation was going too far, and giving to the public the
secrets of the organization. But Beggs says: 'Tell everything you
know.'

"Gentlemen, my client has already suffered too much in this case.
He is ruined. A young man who has blossomed out in a noble
profession is forever ruined. It requires but a charge of this
kind, it matters not what your verdict may be, and the stain is
fastened upon his skirts and there it must stay forever. He has
already suffered too much, I have no peroration to make. I demand
your cool, deliberate judgment, and that is all I ask. I make no
appeal to your sympathy. On behalf of myself, and on behalf of
Beggs, and of my associates, I extend to you thanks for the kind
and patient manner in which you have listened to the testimony and
listened to my efforts at an argument.

"I hope the time is short when he will be able to thank each one of
you, to take each one of you by the hand and in person thank you
for his deliverance, and then may you be returned to the loved ones
at home, and may he be returned to the bosom of his loved wife, for
love makes the world so small that all the beauty is in one face,
all the music in one voice and all the rapture is in one kiss.
Gentlemen, I thank you."

* * * * *

FORREST'S ABLE PLEA ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS.

"If your Honor please, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, you sit in
judgment on the lives of your fellow-citizens. You act, you look,
like men who are thoroughly imbued with a sense of your
responsibility. You have listened attentively to all the details of
the testimony. You have listened with admiration to the discussion
of the testimony by the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded
me. You can not have failed to note the radical difference between
the method of treating the evidence by counsel for the defendant
and by counsel for the people. One is wrong, altogether wrong; the
other is right, altogether right. The question is an important one.
You will hear my discussion on it and the discussion of Brother
Mills, and then you will hear the Judge pronounce upon the method
of treating the evidence. You will pay no attention to what I say
about the law unless it commends itself to your reason, and unless
what I shall say is afterward given in principle or substance by
the Court. It must be that the method of treating the
circumstantial evidence has been pointed out clearly. The books are
filled with decisions, and our judges can not be radically
different in treating it. In England and America they treat it
alike, and therefore, I say the prosecution is altogether wrong, or
we are altogether wrong. The gentlemen for the prosecution tell you
that the law of circumstantial evidence is represented by the fable
of the farmer and the bunch of fagots, which fable was intended by
Aesop, and by all reproducers of Aesop, to illustrate, not
circumstantial evidence, but the fact that in unity there is
strength, or, to use the expression sometimes used in politics or
war,'United we stand, divided we fall.' We claim that that is
altogether wrong, and, if I am right, they are altogether wrong in
their method, and, if wrong in their method, my inference, is they
dare not apply the legal method. Judge Wing, Mr. Donahoe and myself
have applied the analytical method, which is adopted by every
scientific man and every searcher after truth. I propose,
gentlemen, to consume this afternoon in discussing the question as
to which is right in their method of considering the evidence. Mr.
Ingham commented upon the rule as laid down by the Supreme Court of
Illinois, and then quoted the instruction given by Judge Wing in a
case in which he appeared for the prosecution. You are convinced,
as jurors, if you are convinced as men, that it is right, when
properly understood, but you must not take one piece of this
instruction and consider it, when the Supreme Court in passing upon
a set of instructions never takes one by itself, but considers one
in the light of all the others. So you must consider these
instructions in the light of each other."

The counsel proceeded to read at extreme length from "Wells on
Circumstantial Evidence," with the view of showing the
unreliability of such testimony. Burrill's work on the same subject
was also considered.

He next read a decision of the Supreme Court, which, in effect,
declares that a verdict of guilty can only be arrived at when there
is no reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the
person charged, even though at the same time the only solution of
the crime is the theory of the guilt of the defendant. The life and
liberty of the citizen can not be sacrificed on the ground that
only by regarding him as guilty can the crime be explained. Mr.
Forrest then quoted a case showing that where a physical
possibility existed of the crime being committed by some other
means than that claimed in the theory of the guilt of the
defendant, the supposition of his innocence was not to be excluded
on the ground of its moral impossibility.

An adjournment was taken at this point until 10 o'clock Monday
morning, December 9, when Mr. Forrest resumed his address to the
jury.

He began with an apology for his discussion of the question of law
on Saturday, stating that he thought it was his duty to do so. Then
he went on to argue that witnesses may lie, but facts can not. He
took a peculiar line on this point, referring to the tariff
discussion, and showing that the Republicans claimed that the
tariff is a benefit to the country, and that the Democrats claimed
the opposite. "So you see," continued counsel, "much depends upon
the disposition you have when you start to look at facts." He then
read from "Taylor on the Law of Evidence," citing a case in which
Macbeth was quoted to show that the smearing of the daggers was an
intentional effort to create circumstantial evidence against the
innocent. The decision also referred to Joseph's coat of many hues
which was stained by the blood of a kid. All this was done to show
the unreliability of circumstantial evidence. Then Mr. Forrest
turned his attention to the case on trial, referring to the fact
that Klahre had soldered the box that was supposed to contain Dr.
Cronin's clothes, which, he remarked, according to the theory of
the prosecution, was to have been shipped to England and received
by some accomplice in the crime and afterward published to the
world as containing Dr. Cronin's clothes.

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

"No," replied Mr. Forrest, "but that was your theory and that was
the theory of the whole world. It was not only the State's
Attorney's theory, gentlemen; it was not only the theory of the
press of Chicago; it was the theory of the whole world. The whole
world has learned the proof. These clothes were never in that box.
You have since seen that the clothes that these gentlemen assure
had been sent by Martin Burke to England in that box were never
shipped over the sea. The box was never intended for an alleged
accomplice. It was never intended to contain the corpse of Dr.
Cronin. In spite of all their reasoning and of all the inferences
that they drew, by chance a workman in a sewer in the town of Lake
View turned up Dr. Cronin's clothes, which, instead of being in
England in a tin box, were in a valise buried in a sewer in the
town of Lake View.

"In all seriousness I will ask you two questions: suppose the
cleaning of that sewer had not occurred until after this trial.
Don't you know that in every speech of these distinguished orators
they would have urged that Martin Burke was guilty because he sent
Dr. Cronin's clothes over the sea? If that argument had been made
to me, and these clothes had not been discovered would not I have
given it weight? Can not you learn from that fact some lessons? You
can learn that these gentlemen for the State are no safer guides
than we are. You can learn that circumstantial evidence can lie and
mislead, and although the defendant may not be able to disprove
what they prove, as they say, it does not follow that the
defendants are guilty."

DIFFICULT PART OF THE DEFENSE.

"You see the difficulty that the defense is in when we have to
prove a negative. How could we prove that the clothes were not over
the sea if accident had not turned them up in the sewer in Lake
View? You see the danger of assuming to be true what we can not
disprove. You see the unreliability of circumstantial evidence. You
see the difficulty we have in proving a negative. Suppose that one
of you were on trial, and suppose that the State's Attorney could
introduce a witness to swear he saw you burning a deed or will, and
suppose in the middle of the trial the deed should be produced in
all its entirety, how rejoiced you would be. So rejoiced were we,
and so rejoiced was the soul of Martin Burke, so gladdened was my
soul, when the clothes were found in the North Town; call it fate,
call it blind chance, call it an overruling Providence, call it
what you will, it did for Martin Burke what his counsel and all the
witnesses in the world could never have done. Suppose that the
truth had not been disclosed. Suppose that the clothes had not been
found; suppose that the argument had been made by these
gentlemen--and what an argument they would have made in the form of
a narrative!--describing how the clothes crossed the stormy sea,
describing the ship containing this guilty secret. They could have
speculated about what was to be done over there, and how it was to
be done. Suppose they had done that; suppose that you had believed
it; suppose you had drawn the conclusion that they urged you to
draw in their opening, and that they would have urged you to draw
in their closing. Suppose you had imposed the death penalty on
Martin Burke; suppose the death penalty had been executed, and then
the proof should have been discovered that the clothes were in the
North Town sewer, what justification could you have made to the
people of the State of Illinois? What justification could you have
made in your prayers to your God? What justification could you have
made in the forum of your own consciences to yourselves?

"Facts do lie. Now, by an agreement between this court and counsel
for the defendant, I am not to speak of the Camp 20 conspiracy; but
if that agreement had not been made, may it please your honor, I
would not have spoken of the Camp 20 conspiracy, because it is
wholly unnecessary. That has been done ably and exhaustively by the
distinguished gentleman who represents Mr. Beggs. One thing I want
to call your attention to and pass it. These gentleman have said,
'What difference does it make whether that remark of Beggs' that
the committee reported to him alone was made May 3 or May 10.' Why,
it makes all the difference in the world to all the defendants
except Beggs, if you believe it was the appointment of a secret
committee to kill Dr. Cronin. It makes all the difference in the
world to them, and the gentleman that asked the question well knew
it. It was made after May 3, and, therefore, if made, it is
evidence against nobody but Beggs. If it was made before May 3, it
would be evidence against everybody on trial, if you believe that
conspiracy was entered into between them. That is the reason why
these witnesses were prevailed on to swear that it was made May 3
instead of May 10. Every one of them, I believe, swore that it was
May 3, but on cross-examination it turns out that it was May 10.
O'Connor says that it occurred on a certain night when he was
appointed on an auditing committee, and the record shows that that
motion was made on May 10 and that was the only time he was there.
So you see that somebody had a motive to change that from May 10 to
May 3; and the motive was to make it evidence against all instead
of evidence against only one."

Mr. Forrest went on to say that it was a remarkable thing in this
case that the State had just one witness to every matter of
importance. There was just one witness who heard Burke say that
Cronin was a British spy and ought to be killed. They had just one
other witness who heard Coughlin say it was rumored that Cronin was
a spy; then they had just one other witness who heard O'Sullivan
say, on the 22d of May, that Cronin was a spy, and is it not
remarkable that there should be just one person who heard those
gentlemen make such remarks? If they were in the habit of making
those remarks, is it not highly probable that they made them more
than once, and that they made them to more than one person, yet why
was only one produced? It looks as if they were going out into the
highways and by ways of the world, searching for witnesses, and had
found only one.

ATTACKING THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES.

"Now I shall have something to say with respect to the credibility
of the witnesses," he continued, "and shall ask you to draw
inferences you may not be inclined to draw. Probably you will ask
me why a person should commit perjury in a case where a citizen is
on trial for his life. It is difficult to answer, because we do not
know anything of the character of the witnesses or their
associations, and can not find out what their connection is with
other parties. There is also this to be remembered, that men have
whimsical ambition. There are witnesses who desire to be
distinguished, and who know it is always a great matter to know
all about some great crime which has been committed. The man is a
hero for the time being. He is a great man, called upon by
reporters, written up and petted by the police and other persons. I
can not tell what the effect of that would be. They may not
intentionally commit perjury, but at the same time they may be lead
entirely astray from the facts. Counsel regaled the jury with some
of his experience in trying other murder cases by way of explaining
what he meant, and said it is unpopular to testify on behalf of the
defendant in a case like this. The enemies of my client have their
claquers placed about the court, whose duty it is to applaud when
anything comes out favorable to the prosecution.

"I want to know, if your Honor please, if there is any evidence of
any claquers having been placed in this court in this case?" curtly
inquired Mr. Ingham.

"I certainly do not know of any such evidence," replied Judge
McConnell, "and the remark is a highly improper one."

"Claquers were over there in that corner and very frequently
applauded, and that is where the Clan-na-Gaels were congregated,"
angrily retorted Mr. Forrest.

"There are no claquers in this court, and the counsel well knows
it," said Mr. Ingham, sharply.

"I can not have you go into that subject or say any more on that
line, Mr. Forrest," said Judge McConnell.

"Very well," said Mr. Forrest, and he then turned around to the
jury and informed them that his client on a previous occasion was
awarded a new trial by the Supreme Court. Now, I want to call your
attention to certain evidence. There is a peculiar combination of
men and circumstances against my clients, Daniel Coughlin and
Martin Burke. The same remark applies to the other men, but chiefly
to those two. For example, it is worth $100 a week to Patrick Dinan
to have it established that his horse took the Doctor away. He told
you that. He told you that his horse is in the museum, and if that
fact is not established then he will lose $100 a week. Now, what
effect do you suppose that will have upon his zeal in giving
evidence? Again, old man Carlson was in very needy circumstances;
his boy had not been living with his wife for four years. He had
been traveling around the country while his wife was living out as
a servant, and it was obviously to their advantage and pecuniary
interest that the statement should be established that the murder
was committed in that cottage. How that might tend to affect his
testimony and lead him to imagine what never took place, you will
decide. It is an unfortunate circumstance, and may have made him
remember things which never occurred, especially as he is an old
man, and the wall between memory and imagination is nearly broken
down, owing to old age. Of course this is peculiarly unfortunate to
my client.

"Another circumstance. It is proved that the Clan-na-Gael in the
city of Chicago and throughout the United States is divided into
two wings. It is proved that a division exists right through the
country. One wing of this Clan-na-Gael exists in the prisoner's
bar, the other wing sits in the witness seat. How does the wing
that sits in the witness seat conduct itself? It involves the
entire prosecution, and how does it feel toward my client? What do
they say? They say your wing are robbers, betrayed their comrades
to the British and sent them to British prisons by telling the
British government who they were. One of the witnesses, Captain
Thomas O'Connor, told you that he worked every day through May,
June, July and August as a detective in this case for not one
dollar, and you find there are other persons who gave their money
and collected money to aid the prosecution. We have a split in the
Clan-na-Gael throughout this entire country, and it is a matter of
public notoriety and history that 15,000 Clan-na-Gaels were in the
prosecution. Don't you know it is the same old cover of Irish
slander? It is the Irish leaders slandering each other, and they
will slander each other for all eternity. Now what is the effect of
this? On the one side they say your wing is sending out comrades to
British prisons, betraying them to the British government, and they
are prosecuting them, while they say the patriots whom they laud to
the sky are dynamiters who sent dynamite to England to wreck
property and lives. Don't you see that stand out plainly and
distinctly? And not alone has it permeated the prosecution, but if
you believe what Lyman said about it, one of the dynamiters sits
right here at the prosecution table. Do you suppose there is much
difference between the leaders of the two wings? I do not,
generally speaking. One wing charges the other with betraying their
comrades and sending them to British prisons. What is the effect of
it? Every man who has left Ireland for Ireland's good, because the
English police were after him, and every man who came here from
Millbank, came here crying, 'Revenge, revenge, revenge.' And yet
they say they come here and want an American jury to pass upon an
American case, while the motive behind it all is ancient Irish
malice, so far as that thing is concerned. What effect has this had
upon the witnesses? There is not a witness who has been discovered
in this case since the coroner's jury that is not a suspicious
witness. Did you notice the peculiarity of the witnesses? I never
saw such a body of witnesses and you never did. They have eyes like
the eagle; like the owls they can see better and farther by night
than by day. Their hearing is as sensitive as that of the deer that
roams through our northern forests. Their perceptive faculties are
marvelous. Their recollection is beyond conception. They can
remember the slightest circumstance. Every one of them, and it is
an extraordinary thing and quite unnatural, remembers the slightest
circumstance, and each of them does something more remarkable than
the defendants about whom they testify. You will remember that it
is not some public event which occurred and by which they
recollect, but it is evidence of an occurrence which they
themselves give, and such evidence and such memories as they have.
When in the future writers on memory want to give instances of
prodigious feats of memory they will search the record of the
Cronin trial and cite the witnesses for the prosecution.