, 1874-09-26

said 1t cast ita shndow ovor this caao. This iur,
must bo moro or loss Affected by 1t, and t1o aakcl
oaly that they glyo him fair2y, gauarely, and
honestly tho benefits which Tho law garo him
If tloy could wood out Of tho caso tho prejudice.
which lod to swift conclusions, and could woigl,
1t carefully, 1t would transpfo tlat thoro waa nc
| chao at ali. It would Htnnd mono Of tle rulce
Which tho Inv required to DO nppliedto
o1ncUMsrANT1AL EVIDENCE.
number OF casos resting upon tllia c1nes ol
cYidcnco woro ctod by counsel, who dcducoG
tlicrcfrom tho conoluaion that II waa not enough
that incro suspicious were oxoitod; the oirou1n
stances 1n'iBt bo such ns to ]oavo In tho minus oi
tho Jury no reasonable doubt OF guils. Com.
pairing tho Testimony as to tito accessibility OF
tho interior Of tic house, ho claimed that ii
had boon p!ainly shown that anybody could &C
In who chose. It wAs rs easy for m outaltlor af
for Anderson himself to got in tho house md
aot tho 1lro. There was no doubt, that tho fire
was sol by 4 professional inccndtary, for nc
honoat man had about lim such canlleatctr Of
candlo ns those which wore found. Tho woight
Of tho teattmony pointed to tho probability TINT
MI outsider pilod up tho Mndliug aud scraps oi
paper, dug tlio hole, put tho candfo In place,
lighted It, aud went oil. Counsel claimed
that the distance Of tho floor from Tho
bottom Of tho ho1o dug In tic ground
WAS so grcat TINT tho amount OF
kindling placed thorc would not. and could not
possibly, hayo got tho floor on fro. IN rofcronco
TO lho mud on tho slippers and oyorale, Ae drew
attention to tho fact that tho Toather had boon
10 dry tia. thoro could hayo been no mud under
tho house. How could it bo found that Andcr-
sou MAS guilty Of sotting tho fro, whom 1t was
not until two houGs md thirty-lvo minutes after
llo left tho house tlat tho ire had burned
through tho ftoor2 That It would Aavo burned
through in less than bali that tl1no Nas proved
by the experiments maao by tho Witness sc1ton.
A aonE COMPLETE ALInl
could not DO proved. The eyidonco showed that
Anderson would hnvo 1cst money by tile DO
struction Of tho property In his house, to say
nothing, Of burning. up tho property, Of lis
mothor-in-law md his cousin, on which thero
wna no insurance. In orory single particular tue
case OF tho prosecution had boon overwhelmed
by tlo witnesses for tho defense, and the prose-
cution had boon proved to ho tasse.
At tho clogo Of his address, Mr. Swott grow
worry pathotic on tho subject Of Anderaons pro-
vioua character and history-Ho much 90 that
tho prisoner and bis vlfc and relatives wero af"
fected to toarB. 1lo claimed that thore WAS
nothing In this oaso that was not l,ab1o to Imp
pen to my mnu on the jury, and ho implorod
them not to lot tho populnr CRY Of vengeance
against incondiarEsm hunt on honest, innocent
man into tho ronitonttary. Ho loft tho fate OF
the prisoner and Of hia fa1nily IN tho hands Of
tho jury.
in his closing argument said that no ono could
pity tho prisoner moro than he did. Society
must bo protected and tho law upheld. Uo pitiod
this weeping woman, as ho Ind pitied many a
woman before whose husband had been convict
cd Of orimo. Tho fact that tho wifo and Children
OF criminals were tho chlot sulIorora. was 10
reason why tho jury Or tho Judge should faltor
in their duty. If tho Bpoakor did not beliovo this
man guilty, ho would alt in his seas dumb. On
tho subject Of oharacter, ho paid that judas had
Lord and Mastor. It mndo no. difference what
Auderaon's previous character was; 1t could not
shield him from tile consequences Of hiH crims.
Give him tho fullest beneat Of hts good charao-
ter, but still tho evidence pointed to lin as tho
10 THE A1.1p1,
1t amounted to nothing. Conccdo that lo vent
to Cornell ut o'clock Of course he ditln't pro-
poso to DO tlere whlo tho house was burning.
Did ho Givo any reason why ho Wanto1 to 60 to
Cornell tho Sunday night before? None at all.
The object undoubtedly waa to make evidence
to Hervo him during tho trial. On tho subject Of
ctroumstantial proof, hlr. Reed quoted from
eminent authoritics to show that this class of
evidence was iuat as legal and conclusive Of guilt
as direct proof would be. Tho evidence Ia this
case WAS entirely consistent with Anderuon's
guilt, and entirely inconsistent with hia iuno-
CONGO. Where was tho nan who got into tho
house By, tho windows, and dug this hole,
hHu pl!eu tno hlnuhub, anu PlAcco
the candle tliore, anu thus fan tho risk Of do
lection by tho people living overhead aud on
either aida? 1naoiDatiou coud mint tn M
nthnr man. Ha io}t Ina oycroiia nr,i aIrrora IN
ia I,,uo In tooI +ha 1,nie ~ a. inttan s,.1 -.
~ =, nuu0o a ~ toys ~ nat ~ wv aot.oi nuo
loit tne otnnr nalt 10 tne orasof,Islmply bo.
oauao 10 1Ally e1pecseu lnat tneee lH1uga wou!u
be burned up. Surprising no had carried hiH
Iifc-insurance policy md letters patont III hiu
nockot md tbnv had heon fund oti his nor,nn
r,vi,or nrroutoJ, :, wo,,yI r. ~ Loro Lnor 30
;;a,a -. Ss"; t,t n,t ~; "'T MI st. e.
u9e!ouos ueuaeiu6 l"et usa'He' H,As AAo !Act
taat Ing mr. nnQef tno ho1tho W2s aa!np hnu closo
was sufficient answer to tho proposition thnt
tho chndle would llnyo burned through
tho floor in two loltu md 4 half liz
didn't avnoct thn candle tn uot thn 1oor
~ ~ ~ H. ~ ~ uvs ~, .o.'u,n
.ra ~ III 49, ~ Az ,gp M ~ i'ie,, ~ ,9
"oAld olfn uoRu u tno h1uollhas. WHICH Woulu
communicate hIc to tho post agn!nst Which they
were pilod, and thenco TO tho floor above. BY
this time ho would bo nafeay out OF tito wny,
with hin nli1l comp1eto Il mnto mn differ
nnce tint thcrc WA no mot;vo nrnvidc1i lin cir.
.rmotonoas no,ntc3 I, i1,;a mai "a eu;f,r nn+
uunataaooa to1 t ~ W t,a.a a' 90 6antty' Ius
!uefo Maa np !aeA u 1hutlVe' NO 1Hpu cousa DC
lleVo that the TAolo OF Andersons stun wAs
worth moro than $500 or $500. uo urgod tho
Jury to try this man as though there Ind mover
been fire in Chicago; nj il no incondiary ever
nnnliat lin fatnl torcj. trv him Nv t,c r1,lea NJ
iar and ~ aS;donco VI N@'Se - '0 1~s~' ~