The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-07-10


sion of the account given to him oy the de
fendant in the City Receiving Hospita
! and in the immediate presence OF Emer
son actually was. quose; ne r HaSl us
| from the old trouble between MS peopiS
and -the Chronicle and that the Chronact,
| had lately charged his father with certain
stock transactions-fraudu lentstock trans
| sctions-and that he had gone into the
| Chronicle office to see Mr.. De Young. and
| when he had spoken TO him MIR. DE GUNS
! had made a movement TO draw plsto
| sd thai he fired and that Mr.. De Young
! fell down, pulling a chair after MIN, Shu
that he was shot by MIR. Emerson. reIer
| ring to Mr.. Emerson who sat IN the once
! of the City Receiving Hospital with nun.
| That is the subst nee Of what he said.
Now, MIR. Emerson was right there. He
| and the defendant had both been arrested
and taken to the City Prison and placed In
! the CITY Receiving Hospital and Mr.. En-
! erson sat right there while this interview
was going on between Mr.. Townsend and
! the defendant. The surprise which
THIS STRAIGHTFORWARD EVIDENCE
| Occasi0ned to both sides must have been
noticed BY you gentlemen. Mr.. Lloyd at
once tried, Intellectually, to cross examine
| his own witness, and MIR. McAlllster very
properly took back anything ne mad IN
tended against Mr.. Townsend, who also
informed you that the defendant told him
that when he went into the office he did
not intend to shoot Mr.. De Dung, thus
understanding Mr.. Walters recollection of
HI, conversation with the defendant Just
before the shooting, and the defendants
own testimony on this trial. and proving
conrJnsiyeIy that self-defense was not
fAa icatcd OF manufactured, as has been
iuti!Ea;ed so frequently In the course or
this trial. When the defendant gives his
,crsion of the transaction upon which they
are andel taking to rely here for the pur-
pose OF dspro, ing the line of defense
based upon impulsive insanity, he gives
Won in ytry few words the
same account of nc transaction " hich he
has given here upon the stand. But per
ha 2 the strongest evidence that Mr.. DE
Young made hostile mOtlOn-and this IS,
as il seems to me, 1t new int In the case
is supplied by the conceded facts about
his conduct when the defendant spoke TO
him. If Mir. lie Young did not intend mis-
chief, why did he not reply to Mr.. Spreck-
els, the defendant? He certainly had time
tor that but he turned-must have turned
completely around-and he could not have
failed to see the defendant, whom he knew;
but ne said nothing. What was he doing
WHAT WAS HIS INTENTION?
He must have meant something when he
turned around. What was 1t! Connect
this with the proba bilities OF the case upon
ali the antecedent history which has been
so VOiuminOusly spread before you, with
the testimony of the defendant and of
Walter, including the briet talk that oc
CURED ut the northwest corner OF Bush
and Kearny streets, with the polite terms
of the defendants address to Mr.. De
Young, with Camersons statement to
Diss. if you believe Dlss. with the Oppor-
after the shooting, and then ask your
selves where the balance OF proof on this
question inclines.
ask again. Why was not Mr.. de Young
examined generally on the whole case in
the first instance
Why was he kest OF the stand
Why was VI listers motion re-
'loteu, If the only OBJ. ectlon TO the propose9
examination was merely that 1t would
have been cumulative!
Surely, after ten witnesses had testified
RI hn froT Nfin in ho ntfINa
it would not have hurt the prosecution TO
have examined an additional witness, and
him the chief prosecuting witness, the
party who had been injured a man about
whom the principal interest of the trial
was actually concentrated. No gentle
men; have no wish to impute motives TO
counsel beyond those they have avoWed-
| dc ire to treat them be ter than they
have treated us. b. tier than they have
treated the state OF CalifOrnla-but re-
member there was deeper reason for the
failure and the persistent
FAILURE TO EXAMINE MIR. DIX --oUNG,
When the attention of counsel was so
Significantly recalled to the obvious pro-
pricty, at least of that course, than the
simple object of preventing the undue
accumulation of evidence. The discussion
alone consumed more time than the addi
uUnal testimony would have occup pied,
and the factthat finally, under the pressure
of our defense, Mr.. de Young was sworn
and was voluble and argumentative in his
statements of that portion. of the transac
= FOR his eNplana-
not only have they got 10
CONTRADICT EVERYBODY,
But they have to use the same witnesses
to do it. and that in face of the fact that
they have failed to produce four of the
Chronicle employees, and that the only
man they did produce, who was in posi-
ton whore he might by possibility have
Wallenrod, they did not dare to interroRate
upon this question. Did be make a mo-
ton? have said that the defendant says
he did. / cannot read the defendants ties.
McAllister-but | ask you gentlemen to re-
call that testimony and the manner in
which it was delivered; connect it with the
character the defendant has proved; CON
and ask yourselves deep down in your
hearts whether you believe these state
ments or not. l will be willing to leave
such statement as was made here by
this defendant to the common instincts,
the impulses. the intuitions of any honor
able man who listened to it.
Now, the defendant is corroborated as to
the motion made by Mr.. De Young. by
Mr.. Marks. and he is corroborated as to
his presence before, and not after, the
shooting by Schudnack and Donahue.
More than that, Mr.. Marks is corroborated
by the place where this package was
found. You have been in that Office, gen
tlemen. The shooting in fact was near the
safe, and would have SO appeared in that
narrow room to Marks who was standing
near the door. Place yourselves in your
imagination exactly where Marks placed
himself and then look east IN that room.
Remember how narrow hat Office ia; what
small space there is between the flaps of
that safe and the southern wall and then
ask yourselves whether it would not have
APP cared to every body placed where Marks
was, that De Young was standing near
that safe and whether in fact he was not
standing near that safe2
Then we have had
AT,7rA fUy
How absurd that attack was when the
other side had before them the example
and the illustration of Mr.. Brokaw. Mr..
Marks did MT come here unseen by any
other human being in or about that office;
he came here and proved, unless you he
lieve that three men committed perjury,
that he was in that office precisely as he
stated before any shooting whatever occur
red. He is the trusted and the honored sec
rotary of an Organiza ton devoted to charity
He is blunt. frank, straightforward in his
appearance and in his manner, and his
statements were clear, distinct and not in
the least degree involved. But in this
case, under the smallest pretext, every
witness who has been introduced here by
the defense has been attacked. Character
is not valued by the prosecution here. 1t
ls no protection. The same libelous and
the same slanderous rule which has pre-
vailed IN the Chronicle Office during all
its relations with Claus Spreckels and his
family are applied here to the witnesses
who are interviewed for the purpose of
sustaining the defense.
But beyond all this, gentlemen, 1 say
that In one sense and perhaps this may
not have occurred to you, Mr.. Emerson
corroborates the statement that Mr.. De
Young made a motion. You will remem-
Der that Mr.. Emerson denied that he told
the defendant that he had fired because he
thought he was shooting at him; but on
ms point he was contradicted both by the
defendant and by Officer Linville. who
had been examined by the prosecution,
put was evidently determined to state just