Chapter XXIII (6)

"There was that man Pulaski, who testified that he sold Burke a
shirt. What an idea! That Burke had only one shirt, and that the
witness did what no other man ever did in his life to a man who
bought a shirt, asked him to take off his coat to measure him.
Burke had an abiding place, and why should he go to that store on
Sunday, the 5th of May, and buy a shirt? If anything of the kind
ever occurred it was two of those dock loafers who work around the
bridge, and who look as if they had only one shirt, and when they
make a change of it they buy a new shirt. Now he says this man came
in and bought a shirt, and that he told him to step back and try on
a nice clean shirt, and if it did not fit to put it right back in
the lot. You know as well as I do that when you go and buy a
ready-made shirt there is only one question asked you--What is the
size of your collar? But that is not all. He remembers another man
who was standing across the street, and that this man went into the
middle of the street and hailed the other man, and then they had a
whispered conversation. Now he tells you that he remembers that the
big man wore a 16-1/2 collar and the little man, who subsequently
came across the street, wore a 15-1/2 collar. He remembers it
exactly, and did not testify before the coroner's inquest. And then
they had a photograph which he identifies, but they never
introduced it in evidence, and I don't know why, but it looked to
me as if a 15-1/2 collar would go only half way round that man's
neck.

"Now comes Klahre, and he says what never occurred. That on the
morning of Sunday, May 5th, he read in one of the papers that Dr.
Cronin was a spy, and had been made away with. As we all know, Mrs.
Conklin testified that not one word was said about it until 12
o'clock Sunday, but they had to get it in quick, because Burke was
out of town on the 8th and 9th. He says that on Monday morning
Martin Burke came into his place with a box, a tin box, with a rope
around it. The expressman brought in the box, which weighed about
fifty pounds, and put it down, and we may rightly call this the box
trick. Klahre said he was going to cut the rope, when Burke called
out: 'Hold on; don't you cut that rope.' It would not do for him to
peep into that box, because he might have seen Dr. Cronin's
clothes, and then if he had, and it had turned out subsequently
that the clothes were found in the sewer, it might have been shown
that he told a fib. But he asked Martin Burke one question, 'What
do you think of Cronin's disappearance?' He tells you that Burke
said, 'He is a British spy, and ought to be killed.' So the great
mystery has been solved. He further says that neither he nor Burke
said another word in an hour and a half. The first man that came
there told Klahre just what he wanted to know, and you will
remember that they asked every man they wanted to impeach, 'Didn't
you say Cronin was British spy and ought to have been killed?' Now,
some one made that to order."

DRIVER SWANSON'S STORY.

"Now take Swanson. By the way, do you remember that when Captain
Schuettler, the police officer who spoke to nearly every witness
since the coroner's inquest, was on the stand, it turned out that
every time he struck a witness from Clark street to Lake View the
man was either a German or a Swede? You would not expect a German
detective to find an American, nor would you expect a German
detective to find an Irishman. Why I can not tell you, but that is
a fact. Now, Swanson gave his testimony. Two of my witnesses go to
a livery stable and get a carriage. The carriage was got to go to
Fleming's opening on West Van Buren street, and Fleming was a
cousin of William Coughlin. The carriage comes to William
Coughlin's saloon, but Coughlin, the very person interested in
going to the opening, is the very person, according to his
testimony, who did not go. The Swede remembers every street he
drove through, every place he stopped, and every cobblestone he
drove over, and yet they tell you that although it's a large
establishment their men did not wear a uniform or livery until
after the 10th of May. The man says he had a tall hat, a cut-away
coat, his pantaloons did not come up under his vest, and yet he was
seen driving through the streets at 12 o'clock at night."

"O'Sullivan watered his garden on that day, too," dryly remarked
the State's Attorney.

"Yes, and if it had been your witness he would have told you what
flower it was he watered, what its color was and just how long it
had been growing, in every detail," said Mr. Forrest.

The counsel then went on to give some of his college experience
where a professor told him the great argument of the truth of the
gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was that each one of them
differed in the circumstantial details of each transaction but all
agreed in the essentials of every transaction. "That is the
argument which can not be answered, whereas if they had agreed in
all the details, the argument would be conspiracy, collusion and
fraud."

RIDICULING THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES.

Counsel then criticised the testimony given by Carberry, whom he
designated as the impecunious and modest man, and who fixes the
night of May 4th by his giving a large order to his grocery, and
then considered what he was pleased to call the remarkable story
given by Dinan and his wife and Moreland regarding the horse and
the buggy which it was alleged the Doctor was driven away in. He
remarked that the horse left the stable at 7:30, not at 7:20, as
had been testified to, and then proceeded to review Mrs. Conklin's
identification of the horse and buggy. He ridiculed the testimony
of the witnesses who were able to say that there was a dim light in
one room of Mrs. Conklin's house and a bright light in the other,
and argued that because they all agreed on that point, therefore
there was something suspicious about that testimony. "She says she
observed more about that horse, with a mosquito screen behind her
and an electric light in front of her, than the owner of the horse,
who has had it for seven years. Why, if you sent a veterinary
surgeon to look at that horse, he could not, after looking over the
horse, give you a more exact description of its peculiarities than
Mrs. Conklin learned through that screen.

"Now comes the knife transaction. Mr. Flynn appears. Mr. Flynn is a
remarkable policeman. See if he did not do a more remarkable thing
than Dan Coughlin did. He is ordered to arrest Coughlin, and he
takes from his pocket a revolver and two knives--two knives not
worth 10 cents, both of them. He takes the two knives to his desk
at the Central Station and locks them up, and then it occurs to him
that they will not be safe there and he puts them in the Fidelity
deposit vault, when right beneath him on the floor below is the
custodian of property taken from prisoners with a vault having a
combination lock. Did you ever hear of a policeman taking a
revolver and two old knives worth 10 cents to the Fidelity Bank
because he was responsible for the property? He never says a word
about it until last Monday, and he shows them to Conklin. And,
mirabile dictu!--he says he carried those knives for two years; one
of them he found on the street: he put one on the mantel, and the
Doctor carried one of them in his vest and one in his pants. He
just knew exactly where the Doctor carried these knives. If you
have two knives you do not trouble yourselves about where you carry
them; but Conklin knew that the Doctor had one knife in his vest
and the other in his pants. Don't you see what remarkable feats
they perform?

"Now, Neiman is a saloon-keeper, and a party happens to go to his
place. His attention is called to it three months afterward, and he
can remember that three people came in to get a glass of wine, and
he can tell you that one of the men wore a Prince Albert coat. It
never occurred to anybody that Dan Coughlin and Kunze were in that
saloon until a week before Neiman testified, and then Dan Coughlin
was pointed out to him by a detective. Don't you notice the urgency
there was how to get him to express an opinion? Now, if witnesses
were urged here, what do you suppose was urged upon them outside?
Next comes the man Mertes. Owls can see by night, and he says he
saw these men enter the cottage and then tells you all about it.
Mrs. Hoertel has a remarkable memory. She is in the habit of going
out to find her husband who is drunk, and knew certain saloons that
he frequented. It was no unusual thing for her to find her husband,
but on this night she knows just what streets she went along and
just where she turned the corners. She is searching for her
husband, and she goes to a saloon, does not see him there, but she
looks at the clock and sees that it was exactly eight o'clock, and
she will never forget the circumstance that it was exactly eight
o'clock. She has got to remember that it was eight o'clock or she
will run afoul of Mertes, and they both remember the same thing.
She says she saw him enter the cottage; she hears the blows and
hears the cries of 'God!' and 'Jesus!' and hears the dying moan.
And yet she never says a word to any body. She is locked out and
sits on the steps all night, and she goes to her husband's partner,
with whom she is apparently on good terms, and does not tell her
story."

EXPERTS ON THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

"Now, we go to their experts on the cause of death. How can they
tell the cause of death? I have heard of men giving extraordinary
opinions, but their experts can tell you what killed the man, and
still they can not find any evidence of it. If the public
prosecutor had put in his indictment 'cause of death unknown,' it
would not have been necessary for them to say he died from some
kind of violence, but the jury is prejudiced against these men
because they said the death is due to that particular thing."

Mr. Forrest went on to review the testimony of the experts as to
the hair and blood, and ridiculed the testimony of Professor Tolman
in regard to his microscopical examinations of what he called
lanugo. He said, "don't you see the Clan-na-Gaels at work? Let the
two wings of the Clan-na-Gaels alone and they will make a laughing
stock of American juries. You and I have got to stand between them.
Everything that they introduced respecting the hair was introduced
for the purpose of misleading you. The testimony of Tolman was
introduced to show by the diameters of hairs that were alike that
they were Dr. Cronin's hair, so that you should not be mislead. 'A
little learning is a dangerous thing.' A great scientist can take
an Irish setter and get two locks of hair from him and examine
them; the hairs are of the same diameter; can he swear that they
came from the same dog or no? The hairs of dogs are alike, and
human hair is as much alike as the hair of horses or of sheep is
alike. Only think of taking a bit of wool from one sheep and
comparing it with the wool of another sheep to see if they came
from the same sheep! We are like the animals in structure: our
bones are alike, our hearts are alike, our viscera are alike; there
is no material difference, and it is just as impossible to tell
whether two locks came from the same human head as it is to tell
whether wisps of hair came from the same horse's tail."

CAUSE OF DR. CRONIN'S DEATH.

At the opening of the afternoon session, Mr. Forrest began the
discussion of the cause of death. "It is said by the learned
gentlemen who represent the people, that our defense on that
question is technical, but I deny it, and I will satisfy you that I
am right and that it is a substantial defense. They will tell you
it shows the weakness of our case. Gentlemen, I am engaged in
defending the lives of these men, and I will avail myself of any
technicalities and of any and every question in order to perform my
duty. I will show you that it is not technical, and for this
reason. They can try us again, they can indict us for causing death
by hanging, by suffocation, by apoplexy, and also by causes
unknown, and you are asked to convict under this indictment to
repair the blunder of the State's Attorney. This is a very simple
proposition of law. If I charge you with stealing my money I must
prove you stole my money, and it will not do to show that you stole
my potatoes; but if you are again indicted for stealing my potatoes
you can only plead you didn't steal my money. Suppose the body was
burned after a man was poisoned, would you be able to prove that he
was poisoned? No, but you would have to charge in your indictment
that he died from causes unknown. It will not do to simply prove
that this man, Dr. Cronin, died from violence; that is not the
question. The indictment charges death from wounds on the head,
face and body. There is no evidence of any wound on the body, so
that is excluded, and you are reduced to the supposition of wounds
on the head and face. It is not a technical defense, as I say,
because an acquittal on this indictment does not prevent their
being tried a half a dozen times under different issues. I will now
refer to the testimony of Dr. Egbert. In his examination, which I
will read to you, he describes the wounds on the head, but
distinctly and emphatically says that he can not say whether the
arteries were cut. The counsel for the State very adroitly put
their questions as to whether the arteries were involved, and he
said they were. He meant that the arteries were in that region.
However, Dr. Egbert testifies that the man did not die from
hemorrhage. Dr. Perkins next comes on the stand, and tells you that
the man died of concussion or contusion of the brain. There was no
evidence of it, because the brain was too decomposed, but he knows
and is perfectly satisfied that that was the cause of death. Dr.
Egbert could not, by any possibility, assign the cause of death,
owing to the decomposition which had taken place, nor could he tell
whether those wounds were made before or after death. Dr. Perkins
says the same thing, and Dr. Moyer says the same. If they do not
know, how do you know? Some of you told me your minds were made up,
but by the living God you must try us according to the law. The
burden of proof is on them and they must prove the cause of death,
and how do you know it? Will you guess at it? Do you propose to
guess my clients guilty and then hang them?"

TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS.

Mr. Forrest read from the testimony of medical men at some length
to show that they could not assign the cause of death, and asserted
that the State had compelled its witnesses to stretch their
consciences and to testify to what were not the facts, because of
the State's Attorney's blunder in not putting into the indictment
"cause of death unknown."

"Are you reading that testimony of Dr. Perkins correctly?" inquired
Mr. Hynes. "You are putting as an answer and reading to the jury as
an answer of the Doctor's what in reality was a question of your
own."

"Well, possibly I did," responded Mr. Forrest, who went on reading
testimony. His misquotation of the testimony in that case, however,
induced the State's Counsel to keep a very sharp eye on the
evidence he quoted. Mr. Forrest criticised at some length the
testimony given by Dr. Perkins, and argued that if it would not be
possible to tell whether the victim died from concussion or
contusion of the brain without a microscopical examination, it was
a remarkable thing that no such examination had been made. It was
evident from the testimony that some one was straining his
conscience as far as he dared, and it was also in proof that it
would have been impossible to have told even by a microscopical
examination of the brain whether death resulted from concussion or
contusion. However, if it could, they did not do it. Yet the
attorneys for the State will ask you to say that this matter is
satisfactorily proved; that you know what the cause of death was,
no matter whether you do or not, and, notwithstanding all the
doctors say, it was impossible to say what was the cause of death.
The State says to you, 'We want these men convicted,' but I say to
you, 'Do your duty.' The State says to you, 'Violate your oaths and
convict them now,' and that doctrine is preached by the public
prosecutor in a community where, above all things, the people
should be taught respect for the administration of the law. Counsel
then passed to an examination of the testimony given by Dr. Moore.
He argued that even Dr. Moore could not assign any cause of death,
and then made a frantic appeal to the jury, inquiring, 'Are you
prejudiced against these men?' If the jury wants an excuse, those
doctors say, we will throw you one. They seem to say we know what
you think; we know what you want to do and what you are ready to
do, and all that is needed is for us to throw out a suspicion.

DR. MOORE'S TESTIMONY RECALLED.

"Dr. Moore said Dr. Cronin did not die from blood letting, because
he died before he could have bled to death," remarked Mr. Hynes.
"It is just as well that you should quote that to the jury."

"That doesn't matter," roared Mr. Forrest. "Moore says that he
might have died and possibly would have died from concussion or
contusion of the brain, but he does not dare say that he did die
from it. He throws no more light on the cause of death than did the
others. His evidence was the most extraordinary, and the conclusion
he arrived at as to why there was contusion of the brain was also
most extraordinary, and although it must be a very tiresome
proceeding to you, gentlemen, I am compelled to comment upon it and
go into it at some length."

Counsel then read copious extracts from the testimony of Dr. Moore,
remarking that that doctor reminded him of a celebrated man named
Bogardus, who had written a book upon the theory that all disease
could be cured by blood-letting and hot water. "He practiced his
theory, but by and by his patients began to die, and wherever he
went the undertaker followed. His friends complained to him and
said: 'You had better give up your theory.' 'Can't give it up,'
said the doctor. 'Don't care how many die; I have written a book
and have a theory, and must sustain it.' So with the indictment of
the State's Attorney. 'I have written an indictment; it is my
theory and has got to be sustained, right or wrong, in spite of the
law and evidence, and you give me a jury which is excited and I
will get some one to swear to something, and that will be enough.
My theory must be sustained.' Are you gentleman ready to violate
your oaths by sustaining it?"

NO PROOF OF THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

"We have in evidence that the brain was disintegrated. 'I do not
find,' said the doctor, 'any indication of brain disease, because
the brain was too far disintegrated.' He did find concussion and
contusion of the brain, yet there was no evidence of that. If the
brain was so far disintegrated that they could not tell one thing,
how could they tell the other? Of course he could not tell whether
he died of brain disease, yet he could, although there was no
evidence, swear that the man died of concussion of the brain. I
asked him whether he could discover brain diseases by the naked
eye, and he said no, that it would require microscopical
examination, and yet he did not make the examination required. Dr.
Andrews says you can not possibly tell the cause of death from that
post-mortem examination, and that is the position that all the
other doctors occupy in the case. I say to you, therefore, that the
indictment should have read for causing his death in an unknown
way, and then men would not have had to strain their consciences
and could have answered the question intelligently. Are we not to
have conscience in this matter at all? The law should be executed
in this country as it is in England. There is no place in the world
where there is so much respect for law as there is there, and there
is no place in the world where they so uniformly execute the strict
letter of the law, no matter what the consequence may be. The
witnesses therefore have disposed of both the internal and external
evidences, and the doctors have told you they can not possibly tell
you what the cause of death was. Now, if the doctors say they can
not, can you? But, says the State's Attorney, you have got to
sustain my theory. Now, I ask you gentlemen, as twelve law-abiding
men, twelve men who look me straight in the face--you twelve men
told me you would try my client according to the law and the
evidence--if the Court tells you the cause of death must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, I ask you how on your consciences you can
find these prisoners guilty, and even without the testimony of Drs.
Andrews and Moyer? The God's truth is that no man can tell the
cause of death. No man can tell how he was killed, whether the
wounds caused death or whether he died from contusion or concussion
of the brain. There is nothing in the evidence about blood letting,
and there is nothing about concussion or contusion of the brain,
and I ask you to keep to your contracts with the law and with your
God, and to follow it, no matter where it leads you. You and I
would risk our lives for the defense of Illinois if she were in
peril. We are not cowards; we fear neither the hooting of crowds
nor bullets while we are doing our duty. You care nothing for the
mob, nor do I, and Illinois now says to you, do your duty on your
conscience. I demand it of you and you can not give me less. Now,
everything that was put in the notes was put in the hypothetical
question which we submitted to our medical men, and Drs. Moyer,
Andrews and Curtis tell you distinctly that it is impossible, from
the description of the wounds and the notes taken at the
post-mortem, to tell what the man died of. They corroborate the
other witnesses that the cause of death was uncertain. How much
evidence do you want? There is not only a reasonable doubt, but we
have proved beyond possibility of doubt that you can not tell the
cause of death. Now, gentlemen, your duties are important, and you
will be required to carry them out.

"You will remember that early in the case the State's Attorney said
dates are important, and they are of vital importance. Dr. Moore
closed the evidence as to the cause of death on October 26th, and
he and the other physicians all swear that you can not tell whether
the wounds were ante or post mortem. Now what do they do? Instead
of going to Dr. Fenger or other prominent medical men and asking
their opinion, what do they do? They know that if they ask the
opinion of eminent medical men they might be told that the boys had
made a mistake, and, therefore, they say we represent the people of
the State of Illinois; we represent the right wing of the
Clan-na-Gael and we will show you a trick. You remember that on
October 31st they discovered this witness, Mrs. Hoertel, who
testified that the wounds were committed before death. They could
not get any one to swear that the doctors were right, but they had
got their theory that it took place in the Carlson cottage; they
have got their men from Millbank prison, they have the Clan-na-Gael
back of them and they say 'We will show you something.' Now, you
see why we proved that we did not get that name of Mrs. Hoertel
before the 31st of October. Mr. Clan-na-Gael, you may be cunning,
but you are tracked into your den at last. I told you to look out
for the Clan-na-Gael. Don't you see how important it was? I can not
tell you whether those wounds were inflicted before or after death;
the doctors can not tell you. The State well knows that it can not
get any such evidence from any doctors, and therefore they say we
will show you that he was murdered. On October 26th they sent out
their German spies, or I will apologize for that and say
detectives. Schuettler goes out, and Hoefig goes out, and a lot of
others, and they look into the highways, byways and hedges of the
city, and finally they find a woman who can swear that she saw the
Doctor enter the cottage, heard the blows inflicted, heard him cry,
'Oh, God,' 'Oh, Jesus,' and then heard the dying moans. I believe
you can talk about this murder being awful, you can say that we did
not denounce the Doctor's murder, but that has been done
sufficiently all over the world, and the whole world has fixed the
responsibility for it on the head of my client, but I will tell you
right here in your court-house, in the name of the law and justice,
they would commit a legal murder to sustain a theory and a blunder.
The whole thing was made necessary by the original blunder. Dates
are of importance.

"Now, gentlemen, that is all I have got to say about the cause of
death. Did I not tell you that those witnesses were remarkable
witnesses? They turned up just at a good time, and the State's
Attorney calls it providence. It seems to me that some men can
appeal to God by day and rely upon the devil by night as easily and
as unceremoniously as Mansfield can act the double part in 'Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.'"

"Let us talk common sense. You and I are citizens of Illinois. We
are responsible for the good name and honor of Illinois or her
shame. We know our families are here, and we are ready to stand up
for her and give our lives for her if necessary. We intend to
uphold the law, but you can not uphold the law by any such
testimony as has been introduced in this case. You laugh at my
catch-basin, some of you; I did not know what they wished these
catch-basins might be, and you don't know. They never examined into
that, and yet it is highly probable that from the condition that
body was in, from its position, with the head being down and the
feet up, and from the evidence of the men who told you that when
they attempted to pull the body up it slipped back, it is
physically possible that those very wounds on the scalp might have
been made while pulling the body out. If there had been a tin
oyster can or anything like that at the bottom of the catch-basin
when the body slipped back, it would have made just such wounds,
and in that case, or even if they were made by the bricks and hard
mortar, the skull would not have been scratched, and the skull was
not scratched."

Mr. Forrest then undertook to trace the course of the wagon from
the cottage to where the trunk was found, and said the men must
have gone over ten miles instead of going about two and a half
miles, in order that the wagon must be brought to the Carlson
cottage. Unless that could have been established in some way, one
link in the chain of evidence would be gone. The State said they
wanted to get on paved streets, yet as a matter of fact they went
on unpaved streets. After spending some considerable time in going
over the route alleged to have been taken by the wagon with the
trunk, Mr. Forrest had the trunk brought in and proceeded to point
out to the jury the defects in regard to the State's evidence in
regard to that trunk. He alleged that all the blood stains could be
made with a half a pint of blood judiciously distributed; that the
marks on the lock showed that it had been pried off from the
outside, and urged upon the jury that it would have been impossible
for the three men to have kicked open the trunk from the rear in
order to dump the body into the catch-basin without bending the
hasp in front. The key, he insisted, was found by a trunk-maker,
and that the whole thing was a fabrication by men who had been
employed to get up a plausible story.

THINKS THE EVIDENCE WAS MANUFACTURED.

"And bear in mind, gentleman, that the men who had control of the
lock, the Lake View men, were in the house--were in the Carlson
cottage before Lorch. Schuettler enters the house, examines it and
leaves it; Wing enters there, 'examines' it and leaves it, and then
they send Lorch there, and they tell him to look about the cottage.
Gentlemen, mark you, they tell him to look, and there right in the
middle of the cottage, under some kind of furniture, they find a
key. Now he tries to correct himself; he sees it is a most
important matter; he tries to correct himself as to dates. Now
then, gentlemen, there was a pot of paint in the house, and the
paint is daubed on two or three inches thick. There is the paint; a
whole pot of it right in the house. The pot of paint in the house
of course accounts for the daubing on the floor; that is why it was
put there.

"Then we have the trunk question; the key must be lost in order to
account for the breaking open of the trunk. But, gentlemen, that
trunk might easily have been broken open by simply throwing it down
on the sidewalk, without any force at all, and it would have broken
open of itself without being kicked open at all. But, gentlemen,
for finding the key which fits the lock on the trunk, that,
gentlemen, may account for the fact that the top of the trunk was
broken off. Mr. Foster alluded to the confused way in which Officer
Lorch fixes his dates as to the finding of the key, and to the fact
that while Lorch could tell what he was doing on half a dozen days
on both sides of May 25th, he could not tell what he was doing on
May 25th. Now, as regards the paint upon this key. Just take a look
at it, examine both sides of it, and you will see from the even
edges of the paint that it was held by one end and the other dipped
in. This side is rubbed off a little, you see, but it is evident it
was dipped in. Dipped in, gentlemen. Well, did the police do it? I
don't know, you don't know. But there is one circumstance that can
not fail to strike you forcibly, namely, that the lid was
evidently broken off from behind while the hasp and lock remain
intact. This is evidence which in itself contradicts the theory of
the State that the top of the trunk was torn off in order to get
the body out of it. Gentlemen, this is an attempt to counterfeit
the truth, but it is hard to counterfeit truth. God Almighty has so
made it that it is hard to counterfeit it. You can not sink the
truth. You can not cover it up. It is like a buoy in the water. It
may be sunk under the surf ace for a short time, but when you come
to stir the water by cross-examination, it will surely come to the
surface again. It is hard to counterfeit the truth."

PERHAPS THE POLICE KILLED CRONIN.

"If Dr. Cronin was killed in there, in that cottage, and his body
placed in the trunk, and if his murderers afterward painted that
floor, they must have found that key there. They must have known
that the key was lost; they must have been desirous of finding it,
and if they had painted that floor, and the key was lying there,
they must have found it. They would have looked pretty carefully
for it and yet, lo and behold! there, right in the middle of the
floor, it is found by Officer Lorch. But remember Schuettler had
been there, Wing had been there, the whole Carlson family had been
there, from the 21st to the 24th of May, three whole days before
Lorch found it. Do you think that the Carlson family went around
there and never touched any thing? I don't know; I hardly think you
do. Now, right in the middle of the floor, under a washstand or
some other piece of furniture, the key was found, and of all the
men in the world to find it who should it be but an officer who had
been a trunkmaker who found it. Lorch, whose business is
trunkmaking, was the man who found it. He had worked in a trunk
factory, and when he found the key, as he says, he worked for some
time in order to get it to fit. Of course a carpenter might have
found it, a molder might have found it, a stone mason might have
found it; but of all the suspicious circumstances in the world, the
most suspicious in connection with the finding of this key was the
fact that it was found by a trunkmaker."

DID NOT TRACE THE WAGON.

Mr. Forrest alluded to the fact that nobody from the State had
attempted to trace the wagon from the cottage, and insinuated that
the reason that they had left this phase of the case alone was
because the route of the wagon described by the witnesses for the
State did not correspond with any rational idea of what the route
would be of persons driving from the cottage to the place where the
body was finally disposed of. Mr. Forrest alluded to the testimony
of the expressman Mortensen, and referred sneeringly to his
remarkable memory by which he was enabled to remember every article
of furniture he hauled to the Carlson cottage from the Clark street
flat, although there was nothing in the particular incident to
distinguish it from others of its kind. Mortensen had been in the
custody of the police, ever since the coroner's inquest, until he
took the witness stand. He did not identify the trunk as the one he
hauled, but said it was one just like it. He pretended to identify
the other articles of furniture. It was plain he was drilled on
this point, and, great God! if they drilled the witnesses on minor
points, how did they know but they drilled them on more important
things! He drew attention to the fact that neither of the Carlsons
had said a word about seeing a trunk in the Carlson cottage at the
coroner's inquest, but this was before the Clan-na-Gael had taken
charge of this case, for when the trial came on, old Carlson was
ready to swear that he had gone out expressly one night in April or
March to see the trunk, and he peeped in through the window for
that purpose, and then he sees the trunk and nothing else. This
testimony came just before the mimic from Millbank prison came upon
the stand and gave an exhibition of his powers of mimicry in a case
in which a man was on trial for his life. "Well, did the judge in
the English court say you were a dangerous man?" Mr. Clancy was
asked, and he says, "Oh, yes, but it was only because I was a
Fenian. That's all; and they tried to arrest me for being a Fenian,
and I drew out my revolver and I deliberately tried to murder them
(two policemen)." "That's nothing, gentlemen of the jury; this
makes him a hero; this is one of the patriots who have been
betrayed and sent behind British prison bars; this man who tried to
murder two English policemen in the execution of their duty is one
of the patriots of Irish patriots. So says your public prosecutor.
Well, but the judge said he was a dangerous man, and he served out
his fourteen years in Millbank prison. And now he comes here,
having become a great mimic, a wonderful actor, and coolly and
deliberately tries to mimic the life of poor Pat O'Sullivan away."

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

Before the jury retired, Juror Culver expressed a desire to take
the map of Lake View introduced in evidence along with him. Mr.
Forrest said he could have it, but Bailiff Santa interfered and
said it could not be done without the sanction of the Court. Mr.
Forrest turned to the judge and said as neither the State nor the
defense had any objection to the jury having the map he thought it
might be allowed. Judge McConnell said the jury could have the map
but not at this particular time.

Mr. Forrest resumed his argument on the following day, Tuesday,
speaking for five hours. He dwelt at length on the dry subject of
blood corpuscles, and insisted that Drs. Belfield, Tolman and
Haines had been mistaken in their testimony. The failure of the
State to put in evidence the letter sent to the Carlsons from
Hammond, Ind., informing them that the cottage was no longer needed
by the murderous tenants, was due, so counsel argued, to the fact
that it was afraid the defense would prove it was not in Martin
Burke's handwriting. He argued at length, with the apparent purpose
of convincing the jury, that it was a huge conspiracy planned to
strangle his clients; that the witnesses for the State were hired
perjurers, and that the lawyers were the tools of a body of men who
were seeking to control an organization for political purposes, and
concluded his third day's talk by telling with dramatic effect a
story about the fate of a pleasure-seeker who innocently, in
exploring the base of a huge cliff in Scotland, ran upon the cave
of a band of smugglers. The man peered into the cave. The smugglers
detected him, and believing he was a spy captured him and sentenced
him to death. They tumbled him over the brow of the cliff, and his
body was dashed to pieces on the jagged rocks below. A rope was
used in the execution, and on this fact the lawyer laid especial
stress, but just as he was rounding up his brightest and most
luminous period, Judge Longenecker brought him to a dead halt by
asking, in a matter-of-fact tone, what the authorities did to the
man who cut the rope.

The appeal for the prisoners was closed on the following day
(Wednesday, Dec. 11th,) when Mr. Forrest again spoke for five
hours. He went over, in detail, the evidence relating to Dinan's
horse, ridiculing the testimony of Mrs. Conklin and dwelling on the
conversation between Coughlin and Dinan, to show that the former
had given the correct version of it, and that therefore there was a
presumption in favor of his innocence. There was no evidence that
Coughlin had any motive for desiring Cronin's death, and the main
testimony against him was that of thieves and keepers of
disreputable resorts; nor was there any proof that Burke was
connected with the crime. Concluding the most lengthy speech of the
trial, Mr. Forrest said:

FORREST'S PERORATION.

"Now, Gentlemen of the Jury," continued Mr. Forrest, "I want you to
find Daniel Coughlin and Martin Burke not guilty. Why? Because
there is not established in this case a conspiracy in which it is
alleged these men participated. In other words, to save my strength
and not to exhaust your patience, there is nothing proved in this
case beyond reasonable doubt that will connect them or either of
them with the killing of Dr. Cronin. It is not necessary for me to
repeat that. Now, then, I ask you to acquit them and when I ask you
to acquit them, I ask you simply to do your duty--nothing more.
Nothing has been left undone against them that could have been
done. The State has had several able lawyers, and they have
insulted every witness called for the defense. Every man called for
the defense has been called a murderer or a sympathizer with
murder. Everything has been done to insult and break down witnesses
for the defense. Everything that intimidation in the court-room and
out of it could do has been done in behalf of the State; everything
that insinuation could do, has been done on the part of the State.
The Court has given them the widest range of cross-examination, so
there can't be any fault found in that respect. All the evidence
which they offered was admitted by the court. We have the State's
Attorney's forces, and the entire police force of Chicago. They
have talked about the police force betraying them. I saw no
evidence of it. Everything that one wing of the Clan-na-Gael could
do has been done. In addition to the State's Attorney, they have
had other distinguished orators--two of the greatest criminal
lawyers of modern times, Luther Laflin Mills and George Ingham,
whose business, like mine, is the pleading of criminal law; Mr.
Hynes, a great lawyer, a great cross-examiner, one of the most
brilliant orators of the Chicago bar, a man whom one of the largest
corporations in Chicago relies upon to wring verdicts from juries
in most desperate cases. He, too, has done all that he could on
behalf of the State. Everything that could be done has been done to
prove this charge, so that, gentlemen of the jury, you can say to
your neighbors, you can say to your social worlds, you can say to
your own consciences that no fault is to be found with the State;
everything has been done that could be done, but there was a
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of those men, and I found them not
guilty for that reason. Remember, the State's Attorney has solemnly
told you that the world has confidence in you, that he has
confidence in you, that the Judge has confidence in you, and that
whatever verdict you render will satisfy him, will satisfy the
community, will satisfy the world, because the community has
implicit and unlimited confidence in your honor and intelligence.
This, gentlemen, I say on behalf of Martin Burke and Daniel
Coughlin, in confiding their cases to your hands. No peroration
have I, but simply one word will I give. The word I give is
'duty'--duty to Illinois, duty to your God, duty to yourselves. 'To
thine own self be true, and it must follow as the day the night
thou canst not then be false to any man.'"

* * * * *

LONGENECKER'S CLOSING.

"If the Court please and Gentlemen of the Jury, I regret to
announce that Mr. Mills is sick and not able to close this case.
While I know you, gentlemen of the jury, are disappointed, while I
am profoundly disappointed, yet no one is more disappointed than
Mr. Mills himself. No one regrets it any more than the gentleman
who was to address you himself. I left him yesterday evening at 7
o'clock, and it was determined there and then by his physician that
it would not be safe for him to attempt to close this case.

"When I was struggling along here in the city of Chicago years ago,
trying to earn an honest living in my profession, Mr. Mills called
me into his office and said: 'Longenecker, I would like to have you
as one of my assistants in the State's Attorney's office.' I said:
'Very well, I will be very glad to come into your office.' And when
this case arose, and I felt the great responsibility that rested
upon me as State's Attorney, I thought I would be doing the people
a good service in requesting Mr. Mills to close the argument in
this case. And at my earnest solicitation he agreed to do so. But
it has been willed otherwise, and he is not here to address you.

"Now, I promise you, gentlemen, that I shall not talk to you long.
I make that promise to you now. I know how tired you are, having
been locked up so long away from your families, and it would be
unreasonable, even if I could, to attempt to make a long speech in
reference to this case. And if I do not cover all the points made
in the case, if I do not go into details, I think you will all give
me indulgence, for I do not want to impose upon your good nature
and upon you as jurors any longer.

"We are not in this case for the first time after the opening with
the theory of the defense. In most all murder cases, in most all
important trials, when the State, or the people represented by the
State's Attorney, gives an outline of the prosecution's side, the
defendants' attorney arises and gives to the jury their defense. If
not at the opening, then after the evidence is closed for the
prosecution; then they arise and tell us how they are going to
meet this evidence. That was not done. So that it remained until
the last. When counsel for the defendants arose to address you in a
three days' argument, for the first time, you, as jurymen, and we,
as representatives of the people, were notified of the theory of
the defense; that is, that there was a great conspiracy on the part
of the people; that there was a conspiracy to hang innocent men; a
conspiracy to murder under the guise of the law, and the gentleman
was so earnest in that statement that he carried it all through his
argument to the jury. He argued that proposition with the same
force that he did anything else that he talked about in the case.
Now gentlemen, if that is your notion of this case, if you believe
there is a conspiracy to murder Martin Burke, and those other men
on trial, then you ought to acquit, and you ought to recommend to
His Honor that the counsel representing the people of this great
State should be indicted and tried for murder. If I, as a
representative of the people, am guilty of coaching evidence
against Martin Burke and those other men on trial, I ought not to
have a trial, but ought to be taken by the citizens of your State
and hanged without court or jury. Do you believe, gentlemen, that
there is a conspiracy here to convict innocent men? Do you believe
that these men sitting by my side have crowded me out of my office
and concocted a conspiracy against innocent men, and called in a
jury of twelve men to assist them? You do not believe that they are
guilty of it. If they were guilty of if, do you suppose that they
could do it without my knowing it? If they did it without my
knowing it or finding it out, then I am unworthy of the position,
and should be prosecuted for criminal negligence and convicted.
Why, the gentleman tells you that it is done by the other branch of
the Clan-na-Gaels, and they are backing the prosecution; that as
soon as it gets out of the hands of the Coroner they bring up
witness after witness to swear falsehoods before you, and he states
it in that way.

"Every Clan-na-Gael witness that we have called to the stand
belonged to the triangle, part of the Clan-na-Gael organization,
Camp 96, from which Dr. Cronin left (I put it in that way). The
learned counsel for an hour talked about his organizing an
opposition camp, calling it 96, the same as old 96; Columbus Club
instead of Columbia Club. The whole of that camp stood by the
triangle; the very men who came here to testify from the camp were
in sympathy with the triangle and believed that they were right
until within the last year or so. We go right into their own camp,
among their own friends, and we get the truth from men who believed
that Dr. Cronin was not right in making the charges against the
triangle, and yet it was fully believed that it was the other
faction. It is true that P. McGarry did belong to an opposing camp,
but Thomas O'Connor, John F. O'Connor, Henry Owen O'Connor, John
Collins--the whole of them, were members of Camp 20, that we
produced here as witnesses. Are they in a conspiracy with the other
associates, the members of the same camp as John F. Beggs, Daniel
Coughlin and Martin Burke? Why, they come as brothers from the same
camp so that won't do to charge it in that way. Now, gentlemen, the
only reason of that is to show you how far men will go in trying to
mislead a jury.

"Do you believe that I could have it in my heart to put a witness
on the stand that I did not believe, to swear the life away of
these men. If you do, recommend to His Honor that I be prosecuted
for the crime. Gentlemen, I would rather have my arms torn from my
body than to be guilty of such a crime as that.'

Mr. Forrest--"We believe that."

Judge Longenecker--"Yes, you must believe it. And yet one of your
lawyers wants you to believe that I was so ignorant, that I was so
unworthy of my position, that I was so incompetent as to sit here
like a mummy and let these men conspire to have a jury hang
innocent men.

"Gentlemen, you don't believe that. You don't believe that that
great big-hearted Irishman sitting there (Mr. Hynes), whose heart
has always gone out for poor humanity, would be guilty of it. Mr.
Foster says that he has known Mr. Ingham, and he knows him to be a
truthful man, a man that is worthy of belief, and for that reason
he says Ingham said nothing against Beggs, because he was such a
straight, truthful man. In that regard that gentleman, that legal
light of the bar, charged me with dishonesty, charged that
big-hearted Irishman with dishonesty.

"Gentlemen, I may be a little disconnected in my argument before
you and if I am, you will pardon me. But I wish to notice Foster's
argument for his client. If there is nothing against John F. Beggs,
I can not see why he said so much. It was understood, I may say,
that Mr. Ingham was not to talk about Camp 20 at all. That is the
truth of the matter. He was not to discuss that proposition. I had
gone over it, as you recollect, I thought I had tired you out by
talking of Camp 20. Mr. Hynes was to take up that, and he did, and
went over the same ground as I had, and I still have to repeat
myself because of this assumed sincerity on the part of Mr. Foster.