Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-09

We have shown you that, is that these articles
were published with the knowledge and con-
sent OF the defendant, and we need only to
show you this by tho preponderence of evil
dence in the case. Whether he wrote these |
articles or not, he il the editor-in-chief OF the |
paper and he is responsible for the act of his |
Hubordinates my own opinion Is that William |
Il. CrOasdale wrote every one of these libels, |
and II he had been a man he would Lave come |
upon the stand here and told you 30 if he |
did not write them he would have said that, |
frankly. But when placed upon the stand he |
declined to answer and you will agree with me |
in saying that from these facts it il fair in
ference that he wrote these libels. He is n |
ready writer a keen, cutting, ,scathng writer.
But he could not write fast enough and had |
to get u writing machine 10 that he could
write faster The other two editors tell you
that they know nothing about these articles
and Croasdale refuses to say what he knows.
III the publication OF these articles were
manly act, il this defendant wero standing
up here for the public good he would not be
afraid or ashamed to own his words. to
recognize his own bantlings. There are only two
other men whom we know to have supervised
editorial matter in this paper. Croasdale is
editur-iu-chief; and we have HIM on that
single fact as i'll n wise. When we put the
screws on him he refuses to say a word and
sneaks out OF his responsibility like a coward.
Pardon me il seem harsh am intensely in
earnest i'll this matter, and he has attacked
men whom believe to be AZ honest as any
man who walks the green earth.
Let me compare him to Daniel Webster.
who made as you all know, the great speech
in reply To Hayne, OF South Carolina Iil
not repeat what he said, for you remember it,
| refer To that part of his speech when he
spoke OF our country as he wished to see it iii
his dying hour. His speech was great and
patriotic one; do you suppose that he wUuld
have refused to acknowledge that he was the
author of that speech and do you suppose
that II Croasdale believed he was serving the
public i'll publishing these attacks he would
have come before You and refused to say thar
he wrote them on the contrary he would be
proud ut 1t Just AZ Webster was proud OF his
great speech. At all events he il the one
man whU iS responsible for them aud | think
every jurynllu III the box will agree with me-
On that point
Then. how Lbs,ird is his pleas? He first
comes before you aud says; 81 didn't do It,
We prove that he did, aud then he says
''Uh, yes, did do it; but | did it for tne
public good" | tell yUu, gentlemen, that II
| or amy other honest man had written those
articles, would have gone upon that stand
and have told the simple truth about 1t. We
gave the defendant magnificent chance to
take Il like course, but what did he do?
took the peril OF putting HIM Oh the stand
and letting him say AZ All honest man would
did it for the public good" | touk the peril
OF doing tins. 1t was IA great peril to me; for,
whatever he might have SAID. | could not
have contradicted him. Bnt, | knew my
| man. lie wrote them, and he knows lie did,
| No slanderer il a brave mani mean morally
brave. You sit there, gentlemen, not only to
protect this company, but the whole conmu-
! lty. One word of Islander has frequently
| tainted whole life, and forever blasted an
honest character
| am tree to admit gentlemen, that the
| whole drift of all these articles appears to be
| for the public good, but this was II part and
| purpose Of the libel. But the test of it is
does the facts, OF do the facts 10 tue re-
| purtera Please do not put 1t down "doeH the
facts !" murder the Kings English often
enough anyhow Now do the facts justify
| the language used in these attacks IL the
| condition of this company such M to warrant
this defendant i'll saying lit is a fraud and we
will prove it ~ Docs it show that the charac-
terizatlon of it as u ''rotten, worthless fraud
was just one? Let mo repeat that this
company has nothing to do with Myers, Hol-
| lister, Henry, Money, and the others of the
| Delaware City Company, except that they
took their assets turned over by them They
did not take Il single officer from it except
Myers and for what reason they took him
does not appear probably it was because he
was d skilled expert. | say frankly that |
| think Myers wasan unfortunate connection for
| the company. But we had nothiAg to do
with tins Delaware City Company and
If the defense nave failed to prove
that it was a fraud while in the
hands ot the men who arc now conducting it,
and who We're conducting il when theSt
attacks were published they fail utterly
They must prove that it is n fraud moi
merely that it was insolyent / have known
men as honest as the day is long who through
misfortune have become insolvent, and 1T
man would call them, because of that. Il
fraud and let me say right hero that it il Il
wonder to me that this company mas any bus
lness at all when it was compelled to stanC
mp against the attacks which this vile shec
scattered abruad. hope am not too hard
/ hope that the bile of my stomach il not pro
luclng venom in NV speech. Had this com
tany been fraud it would have melted al
tho first breath of investigation, IL
lid the recent Massachusetts, concern
iut no, they asked for an inyesti
cation and kept mp their organization
,locS Il rascal when lie il suspected of hi
Nnavery open himself to the wnrld2 No.
rotten Institution would have taken any posi-
,le advantage of thU law in order tn screen
rom investigation. Was this what this com
,,uty did? lake that as II test and let uI sut
When Mr. Melee was appointed commissioner
mad they been fraudulent coDcurn the
" )uld naturally have said I'VE do not wall
'lcFee here examining our accounts ain
tsscts We are IL fraud and il he sCes uur con
lItiun II will he all over with us This won't
iuve becu human nature. But they did moth
ng Of the kind Before Mcf're got his con
nision they requested him to examine int
lie condition uI the company they sad
| mere is ANYTHING wrong We want republic I
inpw it aud We want To know 1t. As soon II
lcFee got his commission he came up an
examined the company he came with II
:, uumy ot the company whore very mind WI
mssluned against 1t, as we shall show yu
reseutly thuy gave HIM every advantae
lll every facility to make his investigation i
horou4h and complete as possible; they sal
everything was not right they wanted |
,nuW 1t ii Myers was not dealing faithful
ythem land | apprehund that was the seer,
II the whole diliculty-they wanted to klo
C.; WAS this the course of rotten WORTHLESS
ruud! MIR Muir, whose mind was charge
, u the hrm with prejudice against them, w
. compelled to admit that he saw nuthi
, Arung, except the Pennsylvania laud NJ
:. icfte saw nothing wrong exec
:, JlIat he thought the company was ca
VI wing big load in Myers an
~ ldvlsed them to get rid of him. \
. nunor to Mr.. Bright and Ills big heart he sai
, hu could not tud 1t III his heart to cut loo
i. rom Myers, against whom he knew nuthil
!, himself, while these attacks were being ma,
y against him he refused to throw him asi,
~ Uecause of these attacks and honor him for
. =, After this examination what did Mr.. NlcFt
- 10? lie licensed this company to do buslne
" in this state. If he had had the slighte
~ -, reason to suspect 1t to be fraud il won
~ =. have been hs duty to refuse them licens
- - The law from which he derives his anthOri
SAYS the Commissioner Of Insurance SIN
- make II careful examination of insuran
y, companies applying for II license and If nft
~ /, that examination he has reason to belle
~, ~, that any insurance company IL ln5Olvent
~ ~ If its assets III not sufficient to safely carry
!, ~ Its business, it shall be his duty to col
:, municate the fact to the Attorney-Gener
- and the company shall be required to she
-, cause why it should not be refused Il licenS
az or il 1t already has u license why sl
ot license should not he revoked. Did McF
W W. do this? No. After his investigation. nt
IA witnstandiug the earnest advice of til
a NV. enemy of the company, Muir, he deliberate
~, ,.,, licensed this company. What sort of man
u !, it who did this? Why az honest n man
~ there is in the State of Delaware, and az col
~ u petent to hunt out fraud wien it is to
! !" found as Croasdule himself. He did this a
". he said 30 on the stand here before You.
n; Why, the insurance men who investigat
hi this company OH the sly-the smelling co
ws mittee-reftlsud to say the company wat
he fraud Yes, they constituted themselves il
an smelling conmittee, anu WIN their M
nd awyers-I recall that, we never use that
his pression-with their feed lawyers, and W
il iaking and scraping Of the whole thing
of have they brought single man here to
of that it il II fraud? They brought three N
ib- from Wilmington here to say what2 One
en- them, MIR. Gipbons-and | think Mr.. GibbL
to was very much biased-tells you that Il
sed made no personal examination of this CO
, il many, they did not see an asset or one Il