Chapter XXIII (7)

"Why this learned counsel should talk a day and a half if there is
nothing against his client, I do not know. Do you wonder at it? Why
is it that a man, whose services are so valuable, who never had
anything but an important case, should talk a day and a half in a
case where there is no evidence against his client, and out of the
day and a half never talk about his client's case, except for about
fifteen minutes, is more than I can understand. Was it because he
was trimmed for a speech? Was it because he had to read the Irish
history that he had copied into his manuscript? Was it because
Foster had to advertise at the expense of his client? or was it
because he thought there was something against his client? You know
how he spread like the waters of the Platte river; you can look at
it and you can say what a mighty river. It is all spread out. It is
true it is all spread out, but there is no depth to it.

"We do not take issue with him on the smoke-stacks of Ireland. We
do take issue with him in reference to Mr. Hynes, and we have given
you our statement in regard to that. We do take issue with him in
regard to everything except in regard to the ability on our side. I
admit that we have ability here on this side helping me. Why should
not the people of the State of Illinois have ability as well as the
defendants? He said I had five assistants, and yet these three
lawyers had to be called in to help me in this case. Has that
anything to do with the case at issue? Since you began this trial
three Grand Juries have been impaneled and discharged. Two other
courts have been constantly in session. Over 300 cases have been
disposed of--I am making a guess of that, averaging it for the
actual three months. Three hundred cases have been disposed of; and
three Grand Juries have been impaneled and discharged since this
case began. Habeas corpuses have been heard; men have been sent to
the penitentiary and others to the bridewell and some to the jail.
And yet he would have you understand that I had five assistants
doing nothing. Now, that is not fair, is it? That is not doing his
client any good; that is not in the case. Suppose it was so, what
has that got to do with the guilt or innocence of Beggs? No matter
whether I had five, six, or a dozen assistants, the question is,
What are the facts? Lawyers or no lawyers, that is what you have to
deal with.

"Mr. Foster argued for an hour about how the Presbyterians had got
away with Swing, and how the Methodists had disposed of Dr. Thomas,
and how the Episcopals had disposed of Dr. Cheney. Didn't he talk a
long time about that? What for? Why did he devote his time to
talking about that? But suppose that the hot-headed Presbyterians
had said, we do not believe that this man ought to be permitted to
live? Suppose that they had ordered a committee of investigation, a
secret committee to investigate Dr. Swing? Suppose that they had
entered into that arrangement, not intending to murder him, but
suppose they did, and suppose you can find no other people on earth
that had a feeling against Dr. Swing but these men who said he was
unworthy to live, and that men said he ought to be killed, and
these men had themselves invited him out? Why, the Presbyterians
would hang for killing him, for carrying out that conspiracy.
Sometimes these conspiracies are brought about by things that ought
not to affect the mind of any man. Now, our theory has been in this
case that there was a conspiracy, whether it originated at the time
of the appointment of the committee, or after its appointment, our
theory is that there was a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin because
they believed he was a spy, and that the men who followed that up
had another object in having him murdered, namely, to prevent him
from going before the honest Irishmen and showing them how they had
been robbed of their funds. That has been our theory. The proof
justifies us in making this statement. Did you ever think since
this trial--have you heard of anybody having any feeling against
Dr. Cronin? You have heard of his belonging to this organization
and that. You have heard of his singing in public; you have heard
of his being here and there, a man liked. Has there been any
evidence of any other person on earth that would be likely to kill
Dr. Cronin? None at all. Where do you go, where do you get the
starting point in this great conspiracy? Where do you find it? You
find it in Camp 20, in Turner Hall? Now, we do not charge that the
entire camp was in it. We do not charge that the membership knew of
the conspiracy, but we do charge that it started there among these
parties.

"Foster treats the Beggs-Spellman correspondence as if Beggs was
publishing to the world that he was going to commit murder. Not so.
Our theory is, and it is the correct one, that these letters were
written for the purpose of covering up that which they expected
this committee to do. That is our theory. That is why they were
written. That is why Mr. Beggs said to me when he was brought face
to face with the record that a committee had been appointed, but
does he explain? You can see that it is a blind. You can see why he
flushed these letters in the face of the people; because it was the
work of the conspirators to begin in this line. Nothing had yet
been prepared for the disposition of Cronin. Nothing had been
arranged, but they must make a sort of an investigation in this
way. Talk about reading between the lines? The Lord knows there is
enough in the lines without reading between the lines.

"Recollect that the letter in which he says: 'I hope no trouble
will result,' is one of the links. Let us get it just right, 'I
hope no trouble will result.' On the 18th the flat is rented. And
on the 20th they finish laying the carpet. Now jump on to the 22d,
the next meeting of Camp 20, where these minutes are approved, and
what do you find? On the 22d of February in the line of his
letters, in the line that he hopes that no trouble will result,
what does he do? Pat McGarry read his speech, in which he said that
the man who gave Le Caron his credentials to go into the convention
was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron could pretend to be."

Mr. Donahoe--"You will concede that every Irishman knew who it was
that gave Le Caron his credentials?"

Mr. Longenecker--"I do not know whether they did or not. I presume
they did. Beggs said that they had members who were coming in and
violating the hospitality of that camp. That would have to be
stopped. It was not right. He said that they came in there talking
about Alexander Sullivan, and it was cowardly to talk of a man
behind his back. Why did they not say so to his face? He said
Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in that camp, and he slapped
his breast and says, 'I am one of them.'

"Now, gentlemen, that alone does not amount to so much. Beggs'
letters alone would not amount to so much. The speech alone--story
I mean--the fact of what happened in Camp 20 alone; but when you
take into consideration the manner in which he speaks of the letter
to Spelman--the speeches he makes and the letter on the 22d, when
you bring them all in together, then it does become strong. Now,
gentlemen, I am not going to bother you about reading. I am anxious
that you should not be misled in reference to Beggs. Because, if
Foster is correct--and I know he is--then, if Beggs is guilty, he
is awful guilty. A man who is educated, a man who has practiced
law, a man who ought to be ready to see that the law is executed, a
man who is educated in a profession of this character, is held
accountable for his acts in a higher degree than is the man who
does not know the law. And for less acts he is more responsible. If
this man set the machinery in motion--and his counsel says he is
not a dupe--if he set this terrible conspiracy in motion, then he
becomes the worst of the men on trial. And he is just the character
who would do just the little which would have more effect than if
he stood by in the shoes of Martin Burke or Dan Coughlin. He stands
at the head of the conspiracy. He stood there helping to forge the
first link in this great conspiracy; and I am anxious, gentlemen,
that you do not be misled in reference to John F. Beggs. John F.
Beggs made his record on this chain of evidence the same as Martin
Burke made his record.

"Well, but Mr. Foster says that Beggs is acquainted with Harrison.
He introduced this fact that this second constable introduced him
to Bailey Dawson and Mr. Babcock, and that he only introduced him
for the purpose of what? Of showing his associations. Is that the
reason why he introduced this speech that Beggs had made to
President Harrison? Does that show the associations of every man
who has shaken the President's hand? Does it give him character?
Does it throw open the record? Is it an open book of his character
to go and shake the hand of President Harrison? If that is so,
President Harrison had better stand and shake the hands of men who
are all over this country, and give them characters. If that is
opening up the book of a man, if that gives him a reputation and a
standing when he is charged for cruel murder, why then Mr. Harrison
ought to shake hands with a good many fellows in Chicago. That is
not it. He didn't know what might come. Providence had been causing
the sewer to give up the silent witness. Providence had been giving
up the German woman that heard the last words of the dying man. He
don't know what Providence might do before the case ended, so an
alibi must be proven for Beggs, and when he finds out that he does
not establish an alibi, then he wants you to understand that he was
practicing a fraud on you, and simply introduced it for the purpose
of showing his associations.

"Of course, take a circumstance alone, and it may be weak. But when
it stands in relation to another circumstance in the line of the
object, then it becomes strengthened. And Mr. Forrest will not find
me disputing his propositions of law. Right here let me say that
the Court will give you the law; but do not forget that you are to
try this case on the facts under the law. He may give you fifty
instructions that the law is so and so, and that if the facts are
so and so, apply them under that law and that is so and so. He will
tell you that if from all the circumstances in the case, you have
no reasonable doubt as to the guilt, then you must convict; but,
that if you have a reasonable doubt, then you must acquit. It is
you after all who become the judges of the case. Do not forget the
evidence in the case. The Court does not intend to instruct the
evidence out of your mind in giving you a long chain of
instructions which it is his duty under the law to give. He does
not intend that you shall forget the evidence that is applicable
under that law. For instance, he might give you an instruction, and
it is possible he will, that before you can find the men guilty,
you must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Cronin, if
killed, was killed in the manner and form as charged in the
indictment, and that the cause of death was as charged in the
indictment.

"Well, now, that means you are to decide whether he was killed as
charged in the indictment, not as testified by any particular
doctor on the stand. Why, this counsel undertakes to tell me what
my duty is as State's Attorney. This man, who says there was a
great conspiracy here; that Ingham and Hynes and Scanlan and the
Clan-na-Gael got up a conspiracy here to murder innocent men, and
I, W. S. Forrest, have discovered it. This man argues this point,
that it was not the cause of death, with the same force and
strength that he does any other point in the case, and yet he knows
in his soul there is nothing in it. Why, he tells you that I made a
blunder in that indictment. Why, gentlemen, if that indictment had
charged that this man was killed and that the cause was unknown,
with all these wounds on his head, with all this blood in the trunk
and in the cottage, wouldn't you have a right to take that into
consideration, the blood in the cottage and on the sidewalk and in
the trunk, and the condition of him when he was found? If I had
drawn such an indictment, he would have a reason to say that. I
don't know what effect their argument has had upon you, whether you
think you know more about drawing an indictment than I do, or Judge
Baker, who has drawn them for years and years, and hence I am going
to read to you just what the doctors say on that proposition.

"But recollect that that can be proven the same as any other
circumstance. But before going into that, gentlemen, I like to talk
when I come to a fact and not leave it for some other time. Mr.
Culver, you buy a wad, you buy a pistol, and you buy a bullet. Now
Culver may intend to have that pistol to shoot somebody. It was
known that you were going to shoot him. Then you are just as guilty
for buying the wad, and you the bullet, and you the powder, as he
is for doing the shooting, fully so. Now, Martin Burke held the
pistol, wad, bullet and all. He hired the cottage, he moved the
furniture, he was present when it was ordered. But if he only did
all that, just as I say, it must be a criminal intention. Suppose
you said you didn't buy that powder at all, had nothing to do with
it. Well, we find out that when you bought the powder that you said
you were going to give it to Culver, and Culver was going to shoot
Longenecker for talking so long about this case. That would nail
you. The same way as the other. Now, of course, just to say that
these innocent acts alone of themselves are not criminal, but what
may seem to be innocent may be guilty circumstances. That is the
point I want to make on that. Same with Martensen. Here is evidence
from Martensen, who moved the furniture. Why Martensen tells us, 'I
was hired to haul this furniture; that is my business.' He went and
hauled it, and said he was the man who hauled it there. Nothing out
of the way for him to haul that furniture. That circumstance of
itself is innocent, while under certain circumstances it might be
guilty."

The State's Attorney then took up the cause-of-death phase of the
case. He had not, he said, intended to say much about it, as the
Judge, according to law, would tell the jurors that they must
determine the cause. But the statement made by Attorney Forrest to
the effect that if the jurors returned a verdict of acquittal on
the present indictment, the State could try the prisoners again on
an indictment stating that the cause of death was unknown,
compelled him to refer to it. The statement made by Attorney
Forrest was, the speaker cried, absolutely untrue. No law would
permit the suspects to be tried again. Moreover, the indictment was
strictly in accord with the testimony given by the medical
witnesses who had on the stand sworn that death was caused by
violence from blows inflicted on the head.

The theory that because the Doctor might have, under certain
circumstances, died from a stroke of apoplexy, was no reason why he
had died of apoplexy.

"If he died of apoplexy," cried the State's Attorney, "why were his
shirt and pantaloons cut to get them off him? Why was he stripped,
his body put in one sewer and his clothes in another? The
physicians, some of them, admitted that such wounds as found on the
Doctor's head might not cause death. Well, a bullet in the bowels
of a man might not kill him, but if a man with a bullet wound there
was found dead, it would be judged by any man of sense that the man
died from the effects of the bullet wound."

The assault upon the testimony of the State by Attorney Forrest
came in for extended argument. "It showed how weak is the testimony
of the defense," he exclaimed, "it shows how weak it is when this
three-day lawyer spends nearly the whole of that time on our
evidence and but fifteen minutes on his own. Forrest did quote a
little Scripture, so did the devil. Forrest talked about Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, about whom his Sunday-school teacher taught
him. He said that they disagreed; and because they disagreed, he
tried to argue, that Mrs. Conklin and the young ladies who
corroborated her, must have lied because they agreed. The only
thing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have to do with this case
is that they all point to Calvary, and, gentlemen, the evidence in
this case points to Calvary [Cronin was buried at Calvary]. It was
easy for him to deny the truth of our testimony, and especially
that of Mrs. Hoertel, but he didn't attack Mrs. Hoertel's
character. Why? Because they knew it was spotless."

"Now, the gentleman says there are other witnesses, and among them
Dinan, has an interest in the museum, and all that. Why, Dinan made
the statement he made here before the coroner's inquest. The same
statement he made here, he made in the presence of Dan Coughlin,
and yet this learned lawyer, who spent three days talking about
witnesses and not fifteen minutes over his own defense, tells you
Dinan swears in this case because he has an interest in keeping the
gray horse in the museum. Then, gentlemen, you remember his
attitude toward Mrs. Conklin, whose evidence was straight forward,
who gave her testimony before the coroner, and who made her
statement the very day after Dr. Cronin disappeared. What has he
said but that he would have you believe she was sitting there
committing willful and deliberate perjury; this woman who felt that
Dr. Cronin was gone; who felt he was dead, who charged O'Sullivan
with being in the conspiracy before she could induce the officers
of the law to believe anything was wrong. He would have you
believe, as he said, that she lied while upon the stand, and yet
you noticed how she gave her evidence. The same tactics were
pursued with Conklin and all the other witnesses. It was asserted
that all of it came out after the coroner's inquest. Why look at
it. He talked about the horse and well knows that she described
and that she mentioned about his knees when before the coroner. Her
identification of that horse was like your identification would be
of a man who might come into your house to-night and you might see
him under a gas jet. If you saw him in the street in daylight the
next day you might not know him, but if you ever saw him under a
gas jet under the same circumstances you would immediately say,
'There he is.' His stooping position, his eyes, and a dozen other
things would strike your memory and make you certain of your
identification.

"So with Mrs. Conklin. When she saw the horse in the same position
it was on the evening Dr. Cronin was driven to his death, she
immediately said, 'that is the horse.' Why, because she saw the
unquiet appearance of the horse and the movement of its legs, and
she at once said 'that is the horse.' But it was not necessary for
her to be so positive in the identification of the horse. She said
it was a white horse and a top buggy without side curtains from the
very start, and the moment she saw Dinan's horse and buggy she
identified it. Then he tells you that Mertes was fixed by us to see
Coughlin driven up to that cottage, and he tells you that without
Mertes we could not have proved that Coughlin was ever there. He
also tells you that without Mrs. Hoertel and Mertes we could not
prove that Cronin was murdered. Well, to a certain extent the great
lawyer is right, for without any evidence we could not prove the
crime. Now, take Coughlin's conduct in regard to that white horse.
Or, before we reach that I would call your attention to the fact
that it was known that Dr. Cronin had been driven away from the
Conklin residence in a buggy drawn by a white horse, for on the
Monday morning, long before it was known that Dr. Cronin was
murdered, before any one had charged that there was anything wrong
with him except Mrs. Conklin, word was sent out from the police
force to see who had a white horse and buggy out on Saturday night,
and yet this lawyer would have you, as an honest jury, believe that
we were trying to have Mertes swear that he saw Coughlin drive
there with a bald-faced brown horse for the purpose of swearing his
life away. It is absurd to talk such stuff as that. Yet he would
have you believe it. Mertes never mentioned the matter until after
the body was found; until after the cottage was discovered and it
was advertised as to what horse had driven Cronin away.

"But here is a significant fact to which I wish to direct your
attention. Why should Dan Coughlin, on the Monday morning, before
any one had charged that Dr. Cronin was murdered, when Captain
Schaack said he would turn up all right, when he was not uneasy,
when he told Mrs. Conklin to wait until night, when the world and
every one almost had accepted the statement that the trunk had
contained the body of a woman, on account of the statement made by
a certain man, why should Dan Coughlin be so anxious about the
horse his friend had driven? No one had told him that any one drove
a white horse, and why should he say to Dinan, 'Don't mention it,
because Cronin and I were not friends?' Gentlemen, at that time
Coughlin knew that Dr. Cronin was murdered, and he knew that the
white horse and buggy had carried him to his death. Think of the
matter, and remember that it was on the Monday morning before any
one had charged that anything had happened to Dr. Cronin that he
was so anxious to have the matter concealed. Why was he induced to
believe that that horse had taken Dr. Cronin to his death? No one
had charged that he had anything to do with it; no one believed the
poor woman, and why should Coughlin be so ready to believe it when
Captain Schaack did not believe it, when the chief of police did
not believe it, when the public prosecutor did not believe it, and
when the community were led to believe that Dr. Cronin was alive? I
ask you again, why should Dan Coughlin, on the 6th of the month,
the second day after the murder, and before anything had been
discovered, tell Dinan to keep still.

"This man, Forrest, tells you that because we have only one witness
to a fact, therefore, it is put up and is a lie. He goes on to tell
you about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that is about all he
knows about the Bible. He says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not
agreed, and he quotes that to show that Mrs. Conklin and the two
Miss McNearneys when they gave a description of the man who called
for Dr. Cronin lied, because, as he says, they agreed in their
description. The trouble with him is they didn't tell the story all
alike, but the material part of it they did tell alike. All that
leads up to the identification of the man who drove Cronin, the
central figure, they do agree upon, and that is true. The same way
with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While they give it in different
language, do not they all point to Calvary, and so it is with this
evidence of the Misses McNearney and Mrs. Conklin, and the evidence
also of Dinan; it is the evidence of witnesses who tell the truth
and it all points you to Calvary. I do not intend to dwell upon all
that Forrest has talked to you about. He has talked about the
evidence of that wagon, and seems to think a good deal more of
sound than he does of sight. He regards sound as being far better
than sight, hence I think he will appreciate my speech on this
account.

"He says that wagon was driven from away across the railroad
crossing onto Fullerton avenue. No one saw it cross the railroad
track, and Officer Steib says, the first he saw of it it was east
of Ashland avenue. He also says that before he saw it he heard it
rumbling over the railroad track, but he does not know whether it
was this wagon he heard rumbling or some other. But there is not
enough in it for us to stop long to consider whether it crossed the
railroad track or not. The fact is the same. They did not see it
until it was east of Ashland avenue, and then they saw it coming
back on Ashland avenue. There is no reason why they could not drive
around the block if they wanted to, but we do not know what course
they took, yet we do know they could have taken that course very
easily, and if they had taken a direct course they would have been
tracked from the cottage to the place of their destination.

"Forest then says to you: 'It is strange, isn't it, that they drove
right down toward the city, where they could be seen by the police
force?' It does not seem that the police force hurt them any. They
were seen by half a dozen officers and not stopped, and the man who
drove the wagon did not seem afraid of police officers, but on the
contrary seemed to know just what police officer to strike. They
got along to Fullerton avenue, and they knew that it was just the
very thing to do to drive along a street where they would not be
suspected. Suppose they had driven along Ashland avenue straight to
where they went to dispose of the body, they would have been
unquestionably tracked. But we are not here to argue why they did
or did not do certain things. Those men who murdered Dr. Cronin and
thrust his body into the sewer, can probably tell you far better
than I can. There is reason for acquitting the men if you believe
them guilty, simply because we can not tell exactly the way they
drove around or in what direction. The fact is they were seen on
Fullerton avenue, going east, about half-past 11 o'clock. At 12
o'clock they were seen going north on Clark street, and at 1
o'clock they were at Evanston avenue and Edgewater, and one man sat
on the wagon, facing backward.

"Another point. Some one during the trial, and I think I took that
position myself, during the time Forrest was arguing the question
of the trunk, said they kicked it open. Now, it does not matter
whether they kicked it open or not. Men who could open a sewer
could pry that lock open as well as any one else. He wants you to
understand that the officer pried it off, but you will remember
that those two honest Germans testified that they found the lid
separate from the trunk, and that they gathered it up and put it
with the trunk. Now, it does not matter whether the lock was broken
open or whether the trunk was kicked open. The fact is it was
locked; that the trunk was in the wagon and the key was gone. Is it
for us to say whether they pried open that trunk or kicked it open
from the rear? Our theory is that they kicked it open, and that
when they found it would not open wide enough they pulled the lock
off. We don't know how it was done. His clients can tell you better
perhaps than we can if they had anything to do with it, which we
insist they had under the evidence."

"I take an exception to that remark of Judge Longenecker's," said
Mr. Forrest.

"Oh, yes," replied the State's Attorney, "take your exception.
Forrest also said that the key was found by a trunk-maker, because
he found on the stand a man, Officer Lorch, who had worked once as
a trunk-maker. Do you believe what Officer Lorch said as to where
he found that key, or do you believe that he went and fitted a key
to the trunk, then put some paint on it, put it where it was under
the washstand, and then came into this court and swore to a lie? If
you want to believe Forrest's statement against that of the
officer, believe it. But we say that after they had got the trunk
into the wagon they found that the trunk was locked and the key
gone, but it does not matter. We could theorize as to how that key
was missing on the floor, but it is not necessary. It is in
evidence that that key was found in the cottage, and it is in
evidence that the trunk was locked and had not a key upon it when
they went to take out the body. Yet this learned lawyer would have
you believe this is a conspiracy on the part of the people, and he
says it began after the coroner's inquest. That is his statement. A
conspiracy to convict innocent men! Now, look at it. I suppose he
would have you believe, and he might just as well go on to charge,
that the body of Dr. Cronin was put there by the conspirators on
the part of the State, and that the trunk was put where it was by
the same conspirators on May 5th, also that the clothes were put in
the sewer in a sachel just like the one these men bought at
Revell's, and not only that, but that Martin Burke knew he was
going to be brought into that conspiracy when he went to Winnipeg.
He would also have you believe that Martin Burke knew after the
coroner's inquest and before his name was mentioned that there
would be a great conspiracy, and that they would try to implicate
him, and therefore he would go to Winnipeg. I merely mention those
matters, gentlemen, because you will have observed that Mr. Forrest
argued them with the same force that he argued every circumstance
connected with this case, and you can appreciate the sincerity of
his argument. Is it to intimidate the people's representatives, so
that they would not dare go further in this hellish conspiracy? Is
it for that purpose, or what does he mean by it? If it means that
he thinks he can intimidate the representatives of the people in
this case, he has struck the wrong blow, because it is our duty to
present these matters as we get them, and we shall use our weak
endeavors to do our duty.

"Mr. Forrest spoke as earnestly about that and was as much in
earnest as he was when he spoke to you of the identification of
Burke. He read to you an authority of a case which occurred about
three hundred and fifty years ago, where the identification was
contested. According to his reasoning, a man might go into your
house, shoot your wife before your eyes, and then if you can
identify him the moment you see him you are not to be believed. He
argues that before you can be believed you must put him in a line
of a hundred men, let them walk through a room one by one, and then
pick him out. That he argues in the face of undisputed evidence
that you saw him kill your wife, yet he would have you believe that
you could not rely upon any such evidence as that for
identification. The man who could be mistaken in Martin Burke's
face, surely must be blind. It is a case of undisputed
identification. The case Forrest refers to, is where it has been
contested; where three or four witnesses swear that is the man and
others swear that it is not the man; where witnesses swear that it
is the horse and others swear that it is not the horse; where some
witnesses swear that it is so and other witnesses swear that it is
not so, but who ever heard of any man, any lawyer, any man, indeed,
in his senses undertaking to talk with sincerity and urge upon
twelve honest men that where five witnesses come forward and swear
to the face of Martin Burke, that he is the man, and are not to be
believed. Who ever heard of a second-class lawyer, or even a police
court shyster, claiming that that identification was not perfect?
Five undisputed witnesses, old man Carlson, Mother Carlson, Charles
Carlson, Mrs. Charles Carlson, and Mortensen, five witnesses swear
that that is the man who rented the cottage, yet that same learned
lawyer is undertaking to mislead you into the belief that that
identification is not to be relied upon. It is absurd.

"Well, if he will argue that Martin Burke is not the man who was
there on the 4th of May, if he will argue under this evidence that
Martin Burke did not rent that cottage, if he will argue that he
did not move that furniture there, if he will argue that Martin
Burke was not seen on the premises there, and tell me that he is in
earnest, and you believe his argument, tell me when and where you
would convict a man of crime, if the lawyer takes the position he
did in this case. But he says the old man Carlson could not tell it
was the 4th of May. How do you know? When that old man got on the
stand, Forrest was yelling at the top of his voice, 'How do you
know, how do you know?' while the old man yelled at the top of his
voice, 'Because I know.' Yet he would have you believe he said 'How
do you know?' in such a meek and mild tone that he could not hurt
anyone's feelings. He is not sincere when he says that the State's
Attorney and Mr. Hynes and Mr. Ingham are engaged in a conspiracy,
and when he abuses the witnesses on the stand and charges them with
perjury and lying, he knows in his heart that it is not true. He
has made insinuations against that big-hearted Irishman sitting
there, Mr. Hynes, of bullying witnesses, which he knows is untrue.
There is not a man who practices before the bar of Chicago who is
more lenient with the witness than is Mr. Hynes, and there is not a
man at the bar who will get more out of him than will Mr. Hynes.
You, gentlemen, heard his cross-examination of the defendants'
experts, and his examination of the witnesses who came to the
stand, and I will leave it to you to decide, and not to Forrest, if
he abused the witnesses on the stand. For three days this learned
counsel for the defense stood before you twelve gentlemen and had
no stock in trade; not a word to say in their defense beyond
abusing and scandalizing the men who are trying this case, and who
are seeing that the people of this great State are not
misrepresented. He stood here and maliciously abused Mr. Hynes,
whose only effort and desire has been that the guilty men, if they
are guilty, shall be punished, and it is my duty as an officer of
the State, to explain this matter to you and to hurl back the
insinuations at the man who made them.

"He told you further that I had made a blunder, but he did not tell
you how many blunders he had made. He told you I had made a blunder
with the same force that he tells you that Mertes lied when he
testified that he saw Coughlin at the Carlson cottage, and when he
tells you that, his clients have not been proved guilty,
notwithstanding all our witnesses' lies. Suppose what he says about
Mertes and his knowing it was May 4th is proved, what difference
does it make whether it was on the night of May 4th or not. But he
does put this man Kunze and Dan Coughlin together at the Carlson
cottage. He puts Coughlin in the cottage and Kunze driving him
there, and he and his associates gave you good evidence of their
sincerity when they went to the cottage or house where this poor
man lives, who can talk but very little of the English language,
and told him that the Court had sent them to find out what he knew.
Yet when he comes here and gives his evidence on the witness stand
they tell him he lied, but they carefully abstained from saying
what they did when they went to see him. You will remember how they
examined him and put words into his mouth that he did not
understand, and then tried to impeach him, but I think you,
gentlemen, will admit that it is proved beyond question that
Coughlin went to the cottage; that he had a key to it in his
pocket; that he was perfectly at home there, and that Kunze drove
him there.

"Then he says old man Carlson did not see Burke there on the night
of the 4th. He could not tell you why the old man did not see him,
although the old man said distinctly that he did; but this we do
know, that the next morning he and his wife were out in front of
the cottage and they saw something on the steps which they say
looked like preserves, and he said to his wife that he supposed
they had been moving in the night before. You will remember that
Burke had said to old Carlson that it was about time to move in.
Yes; move in. It was a bad day for Burke when he moved in, and it
was a bad day for Dr. Cronin when he moved in."

"The witness said it was about time to fix up," said Mr. Forrest.

"Yes. I think he did. It was a pretty bad time to fix up," retorted
the State's Attorney. "Fix up is a better word, and a nice fix they
made of it. Old man Carlson tells you that the next morning he
thought they had moved in. Forrest says you must not believe old
Carlson, because he is an old man, and that the story about the
wagon tracks he did not tell before the coroner. That is very true,
but he says here that there was a wagon track, and it certainly was
not necessary for the old man to commit perjury in order to prove
that there was a wagon track. A great many thing's have happened
which were not testified to before the coroner's inquest, but
Forrest says that none of them are true. He first complains and
abuses us when getting a jury because there was so much known of
the case and so much published, and yet, because we did not publish
the whole thing to the world and before the coroner, he abuses us
before the petit jury. You can not please him, and the only way to
please him is to give him evidence sufficient to acquit his
clients.

"Mr. Forrest brought the trunk in here and exhibited it to you and
I have a right to say a few words about that. I also desire to say
a few words about the clothes and the necktie, which was cut
through at the neck. They cut his pantaloons off, they cut his
clothes off and did not take the time to take them off."

"I want to enter an objection to the jury's inspecting the
clothes," hastily remarked Mr. Forrest, jumping to his feet.

"I don't care about the clothes," replied the State's Attorney.
"You exhibited the trunk, and I am going to speak of that, although
they are all in evidence. At the same time I desire to call your
especial attention to the necktie, which was not unfastened in the
front but cut from behind. They had the man on his face, and when
they stripped his body of the clothing they cut his necktie. Now, I
want to show you this bloody trunk. They never turned up the bottom
of this trunk to show you what is there. There is some of the blood
which ran through the trunk. Do you see this blood in the trunk?
You do not believe that the man in that trunk died from apoplexy do
you? You do not believe that he died from poison, do you? You do
not believe he died a natural death. Where was the trunk found? It
was found within three-quarters of a mile south of where the body
was found in a catch-basin, and right by its side, within three or
four blocks, were found the clothes of Cronin in the sewer.
Remember that the wagon was seen half a mile north of where the
body was found with this trunk in it, which was then thought to be
a carpenter's chest, and it was seen coming this way empty three
blocks east of where the body was found.

"I want to call your attention to this matter because it is
important. You will remember that Mr. Ingham mentioned the fact in
his statement that when seen they were north of Bryn Mawyr avenue,
looking for the Lake Shore drive in the sand, whereas, if they had
honestly been looking for the Lake Shore drive, they would have
found it south. Now then, put these three things together. You know
where the body was found and the clothes were found, and between
those two points this trunk was found with blood fresh in it that
could be stirred by those honest Germans the next morning, with
cotton batting saturated with blood, and if you put those things
together, you will have reason to believe that it was the same
trunk that came from the Carlson cottage. Why? Because the trunk in
the Carlson cottage was just such a trunk, and it had been moved,
and in the valise was found Cronin's clothes, and that valise was
moved from 117 Clark street and was found in the sewer. I am going
to make up a chain of evidence in this case, although I am not
going all over those outside circumstances, because every
circumstance which is proved in the case is not necessary for a
conviction; mark that. If you get instructions from the court that
there is a necessary circumstance lacking, and if you have a
reasonable doubt on that material circumstance, and if there can be
no conviction without that circumstance in the case, then you can
not convict. But every circumstance in the case that is proved is
not a material or necessary circumstance. If such circumstances as
are necessary to lead your minds to believe the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt are clearly proved, that is all
that is necessary for you to be satisfied upon. You need all these
little outside circumstances, because they corroborate and make
stronger each link in the chain of evidence. You want to remember
that every point which leads in the direction of a correct
conclusion to your minds should be very clear to you. As to whether
they affect the material circumstances is another matter.

"I want you to remember that Burke went to Winnipeg. Forrest says
that he never attempted to deceive the officers there or to go
under an assumed name, but Officer McKinnon tells you that he first
said his name was Cooper, and when the chief of police told him any
statement he made would be used in evidence against him, then, for
the first time, he said his name was Burke. Again, when Patrick
O'Sullivan was requested to come to the police station and he saw a
lot of men standing back of the Carlson cottage, he wanted to know
what those men were doing in that cottage, clearly showing that he
knew what had transpired in the cottage. Another thing I want you
to remember is what Beggs said after the murder, when he said to
Maurice Morris and another person in the presence of Ward, who did
not take the stand, 'Cronin is all right; we know what we are
talking about and you do not; you are not in the inner circle.'
Whoever said it was the organization or a part of the Clan-na-Gael
which formed that inner circle? We did not, but that inner circle
was made up of members of the order, men who knew what was going
on. Foster says Beggs' remark was advertising the murder, but it
was not. It means that he and other members who were interested in
the murder of Dr. Cronin were an inner circle; that he knew where
Cronin could be found, and that he believed his remains would keep
there undiscovered until they could not be identified. You have
another link, then, in the chain of evidence, and you have to take
every circumstance in the case that leads you up to the chain, and
strengthens each link in the chain that was forged by Beggs. Then
he answers: 'Why didn't you call Tom Murphy?' We had him before the
grand jury, and we examined his books, but the idea of calling Tom
Murphy himself when his partner sits here and has sat here from the
beginning of the trial as a lawyer for the defendant! As to the
money in the camp, Tom Murphy did not have enough money in the
funds of the organization to square his own account, let alone
spending money for killing Cronin. We did not claim that he did. We
do not claim that the camp paid the expenses, but we have the right
to take Tom Murphy before the grand jury and investigate the camp
in order to discover who were the conspirators.

"Now, gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon their defense at
all. They have no defense. When we started in this case we groped
in the valley and you groped in the valley. When you looked for the
evidence you found it. If you are looking for an excuse to acquit
those defendants, you may acquit them either on the ground that we
have not stated the cause of death, or you can acquit them on the
ground that you do not believe the evidence. But you are not going
to do that; you are too honorable men to do so. The people of the
State of Illinois have rights as well as these defendants. I would
not ask you to convict the men unless you feel that the evidence
justified you in doing so, but their defense, what is it? It is
shorter than the defendants can cover themselves by lying upon it,
and, as a covering, it is narrower than they can wrap themselves
in. There is no defense. Since we were groping in the valley we
have piled up a mountain of evidence, until you have the mountain
peaks, which stand out so clearly, that all of you can not fail to
see them, and there stands the evidence, irresistible,
unimpeachable and indisputable. Gentlemen, let us see what we have
got.

"Let us start in on this chain. Go into Camp 20 and see what there
is there. You find that there was a committee appointed; you find
that charges were made about spies; you find there was a circle of
brothers banded together. Take in the 22d of February; take in the
speech of Beggs; take in the letters of Spelman. There you have got
a link. You start out from Camp 20 with that link. You go over to
117 South Clark Street; you go to Revell; you take the buying of
the trunk and the buying of the valise and the buying of the
furniture; the putting of it into 117 Clark street, and Kunze is in
there as a man to throw the public off as to the cause of the
occupancy. There you have a second link. The trunk, the valise, the
strap and the furniture form a second link. Put that on and follow
it up. These two links are undisputed and undenied. There is no
dispute as to that second link; you find Martin Burke taking the
furniture and putting the trunk and valise into that cottage. There
is a third link undisputed; no question about it, unless you want
to disbelieve the five witnesses as to the identification of Martin
Burke. You go on and you find Patrick O'Sullivan contracting with
Cronin, that is the fourth link. There are four links established
by evidence and undisputed leading up to the murder of Dr. Cronin.
You come to Dan Coughlin; he has the horse and buggy; that is the
fifth link. These five links are as solid as the rocks--as solid as
iron; five undisputed links in the chain. You find, further, on
Evanston road, the trunk, the body and the clothes. That is another
link. There are six links that lead from Camp 20 to the grave of
Dr. Cronin. We have the first link made by the Clan-na-Gael
brotherhood in Camp 20; to that add Beggs' letters and his
statements about the inner circle; to that add that that committee
was to report to him alone; to that add everything that Beggs did
and said; it is all hanging on that link. We find Burke renting the
cottage and saying that his sister is going to keep house with him;
we find him disappear; we find him in Winnipeg. That is another
link. Then there is the P. O'Sullivan link; you find his printed
card was presented to Dr. Cronin, and the man who presents it says,
'O'Sullivan wants you to go to his ice house.' That is an
undisputed circumstance. All these circumstances are leading you up
to the murder of Dr. Cronin. Take Dan Coughlin's statement to
Dinan; take his statement that Smith, from Hancock, Michigan, is
the man who drove the rig, the very man that Burke went to see at
Hancock, Michigan, and who says John Ryan is his friend.