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

| Vember 49, 1884, prior TO MS meeting witt
| Mr. MAYNARD 0RNhere had he been
| What had he been doing? What was hi;
| condition at the time of the shooting? a;
soon as he Joined Mr.. Maynard hismemory
| becomes technically exact and the nervous
| reaction which 30 controlled him in the
| Police Court that he can't now remember
what he swore to there, and cannot ex
| plain his palpable errors in that place
! about his parting from Mr.. Maynard, has
now so completely ceased that all mi5ts and
| obscurites have disappeared. But prior
! to his junction with MIR. Maynard his
memory is still blank. This is truly eX
| traordinary and lnexpllcaole. He cannot
remember whether he lunched with Joe
| Rosenberg on that day. He cannot re-
! member whether he was at the Poodle
Dog or not. His mental powers are numb
| and dead until Just before o'clock, and
then they suddenly become so active that
he is a BILE to tell you that he parted from
Mr.. Maynard Immediately after i've min
utes past >.
particular moment arrives. and the sud
den and complete revival when the clock
strikes for the scene which was enacted in
the Chronicle Office, is contrary to ex-
perience, contrary to common sense and
utterly unexplained. 1t cannot fail to aid
tho defense with twelve intelligent and
impartial jurors.
The defendant had the right to enter the
Chronicle Office. That ought to be con-
coded on behalf of the State of California.
He had the right to speak to Mr.. De
Young, who was the acknowledged pro-
prietor of the Chronicle. He did speak to
him
IN AN ORDINARY TONE OF VOICE
And in the language of a gentleman. He
had no p stol in his hand, and gave no evi-
dence of any hostile intention. Mr.. De
Young did turn completely around, as the
holes i'll his coat and the scars on his per"
son demonstrate, before he received the
first shot. He assuredly had time to speak,
but as all his Witnesses beg pardon, the
witnesses for the State-testify he did not
speak. He was as dumb as an oyster. and
yet his attention was attracted and he
made a movement. What was the whole
OF that movement! What are the prob
abilities, taking all the facts together, and
never leaving out of view the malice, the
hatred. the logged determination TO in
jure Claus Spreckels and his family which
Mr.. De \ Dung has evinced for three years
and half. and remembering also that
during that period the defendant has
never exhibited desire to harm hair Of
his head?
You are the judges of the facts, gentle
men, but l imilo:e you Judge them as
they are. discriminatory, closely. fairly.
Aside from any question OF temporary
insanity. aside from the peculiarly irrita BILE
and irritated condi ion of his brain, the
defendant had the right to act upon such
an appearance # danger as would natu-
rally lead reasonable man t. infer that
some serious bodily injury was intended.
What, on the showing of the prosecu-
ton itself. was the appearance that met
the eyes Of Adolph b. Spreckels after he
had twice uttered the words Mr.. De
Young" Mr.. De Young" and when Mr..
De Young turned around.
Photograph in your minds the attitude
which he himself took in This Courtroom
and ask yourself what it must have indi-
Gated, when unaccompanied by a single
word of response or salutation. The motion
must have been rapid. The left foot was
somewhat forward, the left arm was bent
a q
primers which Mr.. De Young was car
ryin9.
THE WHOLE PICTURE,
AS he depicts it. was that which a man
would present who is about to shoot, except
in one respect, and that is. the position of
the right arm and hand, which is not de-
5cribed. True, Mr.. De Young states that
he did not put his right hand in his pocket,
although l observe that he does not in
terms deny that he placed it in his right
answers the word pocket is used generally.
Record, page 1879
l suppose on an assignment of perjury |
for having sworn that he did not insert |
his right hand in his right hip pocket. it |
would be a. sufficient technical objection |
that he only swore that it was not inserted in |
9is pocket, but, on this trial, it might be |
Claimed that this criticism is a bubble |
The purpose of argument, that Mr.. De |
Young contradicted the defendant. q 1 |
think you must be convinced that no other |
human being among the employees OF the |
Chronicle saw what Mr. De Young did, |
ana then combining myself now exclusive |
ly to the testimony for the prosecution,
ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS,
Which pray you to answer on your souls
and cOnsciences in the jury-room
First - Whom do you credit on this |
branch of the case? Mr.. De Young or the |
defendantl
Second-On all the testimony, do you
believe that Mr.. De Young ever go un.
armed for single moment, except from
some particular motive, such as may have |
gov erned him in this Courtroom!
Third-f he did not turn around with
fendant into his private office. or in some
way recognize him. or. If he believed ne
was alb ut to shoot inform him that he
was unarmed
the fact, that by means of leading ques-
lions, the witnesses who were introduced
here for the prosecution were induced to
make remarks which seemed to qualify
what they had voluntarily stated on their
direct examination. They all stated, |
when they were left untrammeled, that
some period elapsed between the words
y De Young De Young" and the firing of
he lir shot. and that it was during that
period that Michel III. de Young turned
around. There was time then and oppor
unity to say something when he was in
hat room, and heard these words, MIR.
De Young! Mr.. De Young" TO turn en-.
.irely around. and see the face of Mr..
Spreckels. Why did he notinstantly say to
That would have disarned the defendant.
Or. If he saw that the defendant was in
he act of making hostile demonstration
lpon him, why did not he say to him.
, Mr.. Spreckels, L am unarmed; don't
hoot !"
And with these questions close my i'm
perfect analysis OF this testimony, con-
cious that my defects hive been more
mr. McAllister.
And now, gentlemen. my work is nearly
lone. The hopes. the fears, the anxieties,
he labDrs OF many weeks by my faithful |
.ssociates and myself are to receive the |
cal OF your sanction or of your disappro-
'ation. What will your verdict be This
THE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS
Which is stamped upon all the convoIu-
ions OF my brain, and which tinges all the
lements OF wearied and fretted life. But
hink not of us, our struggles and trials
treat though they may seem 10 u.s. they
re of but lit lie import In the general tur-
noil of the world. We may renew those
truggles: we may again undergo similar
,ials. and still the toll and clash and Jar of
humanity will continue.
But implore you, gentlemen, to steel
our hearts and your hands against every
lfiuence except that of the law as you re-
Give it from the courts and the testimony
8 delivered by the witnesses, and not as
may be para phrased before you. DO :
It, l entreat you, disagree if there is any :
of harmony. Remember your :
aths, and keep them before q cd and man. :
herish no resentments against counsel, ;
ven rhough in their zeal they may have :
pparently overdone their duty. Think of !.
ne difference that ought everywh re to .
xist, not in the principles, but in the cir y
of a trial OF m n who belongs
} the criminal classes, and of a man who o
every particular. is the farthest removed =
ON them. Think of this young mans q
istory figured by the white flower of a .
lameless life" Think of his bold, ardent, u
lanly temperament, manifested in every :,