The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1866-06-18

change Of vcnue 10 Miami county. The
gentleman acting NJ President Of the
meeting had been the Prosecuting Attor-
ncy IN the case. and To him he would beg
leave to say, II there were occasion, the
manner IN which " had been conducted.
In reference 10 this trial. however, they
knew the circumstances attending u.
They knew II was a packed jury; they
knew the Judge resolved TO favor the de-
fendant: they knew that this man, Indicted
by the Grand jury for murder in the
first degree was received not rs II on
trial they knew that the decision. when
given, was received with applause; they
knew the Judge who tried the case came
down from the bench 10 receive the con-
gratulations Of the lawyers on the other
side, and that he entirely sympathized
with the prisoner, and they knew that The
announcement Of the verdict was received
with thunders of applause-in room
supposed to be sacred 90 justice. No
man can believe that the finding OF that
jury was an acquittal OF the prisoner, but
acquitted he was. Immediately after the
trial. the friends of Mr.. Bollmeyer gath
cred together In this very hall, when a
Monument Association was formed, re-
solved on paying some mark of respect
appropriate 20 his worth, and In
order that II should be exhibited TO
the present and future generations.
No small amount OF money was sub
scribcd and paid In, and the prospects
were favorable for the erection OF a mon
ument. but owing To the reign of terror
which then set In, the carrying out of the
project was postponed; but II was deter
mined that monument should be rails
ed, and so u shall. IL It be twenty years
hence It appears that within the last
two or three years she who has the deepest
interest the profoundest personal feeling
IN the matter, instead of n formal and ex-
pensivc monument, had decided that n slab
should mark the rcsting-place OF her MUIR
dered husband. II was impossible for any
OF them, 10 matter how strongly they
might have been attached TO Mr.. Bollmeyer,
To realize the feelings of the widow of him
who had fallen victim It was impossible,
even IN imagination, TO enter into her heart
and feel as she felt. She was resolved TO
have temporary monument erected, and
prepared an inscription for IL. This was
decided Oh by herself and she had a right
so TO decide, for she was the widow of the
murdered man. and the mother of his only
orphan child For this she was alone
responsible. Her judgment and affection
concurred in pronounclng that inscrip-
ton Just and proper; but she was in-
terfcred with, or the persons who pre-
pared it were, and was Informed that she
would not be permitted to place 1t In the
cemetery. The Trustees became aware Of
its existence by some means or other, and
notice was served on Mr.. Lane advising
him TO refuse admittance TO II, II the in
scriptiOn was offensive. 1t was so regard
cd by the Trustees and 1t was accordingly
refused admittancc. Later, and upon con-
sultation. the friends--the devoted friends
of the widow and the orphan boy resolv-
ed that the slab should be placed over the
tomb. They went-not at night as 1t is
falsely and without Justification stated by
the Trustees, but in broad day light. with
n bright sun shining over thcm--and placed
that monument over the grave. They are
responsible men, men of character, able to
answer to the law or otherwise, ifthe Trus-
tees choose to test the point. He (Mr. W
was ignorant of the fact that the slab was
to DC placed over the grave until he
learned publicly that the Trustees were
about to have it removed or destroy IL. 1t
was a question among us whether they
would undertake to revive the feelings
which time had assuaged, but which they
knew still slumbered. But they did it.
The slab is gonc-wherc, Mrs. Bollmeyer
will be informed on application. Because
it was removed, because the grave was des-
ccrated and despoiled because they did not
p;ry that respect 10 the dead which even In
hcathen countries is shown. we have assem-
blcd here tonight. lCheers. lie would
now refer to the Justification or apology
they set up for their oiicnse. What was IL
They have made statement. and we will
see what it contains. The first defense is,
that the inscription Is offensive and the
next that it is offensive to n majority of the
lOt-holdcrs and to n majority Of the citi-
2ens of Dayton. They claim n right under
the deed to enter n lot and remove any in
scriptiOn which, in their judgments may be
offensive and improper. Now, for the sake
OF argumcnt-waving the law of the case
he would suppose the Trustees were
authorized to act upon their discre-
tion. Then that discretion must be
sound and not an arbitrary one. 1t must
be supported ty some good reason, or their
legal powers could not exist. "OfIensiye
and insulting" What did that mean I?
Fell by the hand of an assassin, Martyr
to the Freedom of Speech and the Liberty
of the Press" Did they mean for one mo-
meut that there was anything Indecent,
offensive or Insulting in that? If SO. to
whom? Was it to the man who committed
the deed? lie merely read from the
statement of the gentlemen which appeared
in the public papers. If they were permit
ted, they would destroy that liberty of
speech and freedom of the press which
they never had the courage to exercise. 1t
is not then because the Inscription states
that Mr.. Bollmeyer died merely, that it Is
offensive. What thenp 1t Is because 1t
states he "dicd by the hand of an assassin
Is that so? Ifitis false 1t is offensive, It is
injurious TO the reputation of Mr.. Brown,
for which there Is no remedy except that
OF the law. But he would like TO know II
these gentlemen (the Trpstees) or any
other considered by the wording Of this
inscription that they were charged with
murder9 That Mr.. Bollmayer died by the
hand of an assassin was either true or false.
If false, 1t concerned Brown and Brown
alone. If true, then 1t was neither indecent,
offensive or insulting TO anybody. "It
would certainly be n great crime TO
permit one lot-owner to stigmatize another
lot-owner In the Cemetery with any crime.
The inscription also by Implication accuses
large majority of the Iot-owners Of being
parties 10 the crime" Is the inscription
offensive, and to whomp If IL be offensive
TO the lot-owners, what concern Is that OF
the Trustees? He would like to know by
what kind of logic they could make 1t APP
pear that the inscription by implication ac-
cused large majority OF the lot-owners OF
being assassnsF 1t Is stated by the hand
of "an"-that Is one-assassin. while the
lot-owners were many. How any man
could be blamed, even by Implication, for
any other than his own acts, he could not
see, although he who extenuates the Of
fense OF III. NJ. Brown becomes party TO
Nl. . ts I,r I.r| lit. Al l.. Al