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

shall not enter into these facts exten
sively. Mr.. McAllister has read from III
testimony so fully and commented upon i
80 thoroughly, so ably and so fairly, tina
IL would be sheer presumption for me q
Fsyamp that part OF his mastery speech
1t would be like an attempt to paint tn,
lily or adorn the rose.
But | ask you to remember the csseI
quoted in my opening, and still more OK
tensively by Mr.. McAllister TO the effect
First, that in an encounter q man may
act on reasonable appearances; second
that what are reasonable appearAncei
must largely depend upon the tempera
ment and condition of the party who GET
the advantage and upon the pre-existin6
relations between him and the partJ
against whom no moves, and third, thai
courteous words and a polite manner are
not ordinarily consistent with an intention
to commit immediate violence.
Then, in connection with these PROPOSE
tons. | will ask you three questions
First, When the defendant and Mr.. DE-
Young met, in view of all the testimony
did the defendant design violoncel Second
Under the evidence was the defendant
then cool, deliberate and reflective or
though quiet in manner, suffering from ar
irritable and an
IRRITATED BRAIN
And from suppressed nervous excitement
Third. In the event of q bare conflict in the
evidence between Mr.. De Young aAd de
PENDANT which would you believe, Mr..
De Young, who had published atrocious
falsehoods about the defendants father
and his family for years, or the defendant
who has proved such an exceptional good
life and character and whose appearance
both on and OFT the stand you have had the
opportunity to study for weeks. | wish you
to answer these questions from your con.
sciences and In view of the suggestions of
Marcus AureliuS and Pascal, that as life is
unC ertaln. it is dangerous to allow q mo-
ment to go by without applying it to some
good OBJ, ect.
1 think there is enough before you to
enable you to enter into and explore this
young mans mind on November 10, 1854,
and / only ask you to perform this duty
impart!ally and thoroughly.
And at this point L request you not to
overlook two facts; that, except in the
opening of this argument. and even there.
the calm voice OF the State has not been
heard across the troubled waters of this
controversy breathing Peace, be still p
-thet the whole scope of the prosecution
has been to depreciato both character and
truth. l say the prosecution; of course
[ do not apply this remark to the counsel,
who do not make the facts. You know
Just how the defendant came to enter the
Chronicle office. He left his own office at
the usual time, although his presence
there was a mere formality, and drove his
business team to Bridges stable on SUIT
ter street. Then, as was his custom, he -
TOOK A WALK
On the west side OF Kearny street and met
Raphael WE'LL, with whom he had a
slight acquaintance and whose testimony
was valueless to the prosecution, and
parted from him at Geary street. There,
or near there, he was Joined by Waiter
They walked together to the Elite saloon,
when MIR. DE Young came out of the
saloon, paused for moment and then
passed on, looking squarely at the defendant
and making the motion which they both
observed, but to which the defendant at.
tributed no importance at the time. Mr..
Maynard was doubtless with Mr.. DE
Young. but he must be mistaken as to the
place where they parted, because he il
by Mr.. De Young's testimony
in the Police Court. by the defendant and
MIR. Walter, and by the physical facts, be-
cause OF course it was impossible that Mr.,
and Mr.. De Young should have
Post and kearny streets with the defend
ant and Mr.. Walter behind them without
that fact having been observed by those
two gentlemen.
/ pass over the continued walk on
street whom the opportunity for
violence was so tempting. and proceed di-
rectly to the Chronicle office, which. we
say, on uncontradicted testimony. was
entered by the defendant for q peaceful
object.
Now, if Mr.. De Young made q motion
when accosted by the defendant, as he
certainly had done On Kearny street, it is
immaterial whether he had pistol or not.
But,
HAD HE PIsTOL2
Did he respond to the defendants Rd-
dress by hostile movement? In answer.
ing these questions, for l am very con.
densed in this part Of the case, l throw out
~ wh.' '~e-im Of tho fra nsA otiOn
from employees in the Chronicle office.
which has been SO completely dissected by
WI. INCA il9ter. simply becauso there was
not one of those witnesses who could have
'een Mr.. De Young at the moment or tho
instant before the defendant fired. Came
on could not have seen him, because ne
was cut off by the doors Of the safe and by
he double desk which you observed. You
he location of that double desk, and saw
where Mr.. Cameron was seated. to the
vest OF the safe. You saw the safe itself,
low far it protruded into the room, how
hey wore in the condition that they were
n on the afternoon of the day upon which
he shooting occurred.
Now leave it to you, gentlemen. as a
hat it was impossible for MIR. Cameron to
ee Mr.. de Young at the time that the
hooting occurred. Besides all that, the
ttention of the very few Of the en-
hat they saw Mr.. De Young about that
lme, was concentrated, not upon him, but
pom Mr.. Spreckels. OF course, Reuck, az
ny friend Mr.. McAllis er said, was in g cor
er, and he very probably left him there.
1r. Blote could not have seen Mr.. De
Dung just prior to
THE FIRST SHOT;
hat was physically impossible You
now where he sat. It is not necessary
'r me t. go to the diagram for the pur-
ose OF illustrating that proposition. He
1t along that part Of the wall which con- |
orth from the Chronicle Office, and if you |
i'll take that diagram and take the point |
mere Mr.. Blote represents Mr.. De Young
have stood, and take a ruler in your |
q r n md r1vsor
oints, you would make q very narrow
AVE, at least, of cutting off the northeast |
'rner OF that double desk. You know i
.er, position OF that double desk
an. You know Where Mr.. BIote |
aced Mr.. De Young on the diagram, to
e southeast of the southeast corner of
at double desk. Now L claim-perhaps
Dung had been there, the northeast cor
'r of the desk would have intercepted
r. blotes vision. But he was not there.
IL the other witnesses for the prosecu-
INIT. In fact, they shift Mr.. De Youngs
'sltlon from spot to spot in reference to
e places they respectively occupied. For
stance, Mr.. Cameron brings him too far
q. double desk TO the hight of feet
ches, and the western end of the desk it.
IL. Either Cameron or Blote must be
rong; in fact both are wrong. The phys
IL loCIS OOhIEdOlCL UOLu, dlInOuRn am
aling only with Blote. All the witnesses
needle that the defendant was
OUTSIDE OF THE BRASS GATE
hen he fred the first shot The proposi-
N that Mr.. De Young had the parcel
der his left arm is conceded. Now that
reel is in evidence. / want you to |
lige me by Just looking at that marcel a
0ment. and you will observe that it con
ms a great number of powder marks
itch prove that defendants pistol must
We been very close to it when it was
ed.
low, gentlemen, some of the witnesses
z that Mr.. De Young and defendant
re five feet apart. But when you OBJ
We the extent to which the powder
cad on that parcel. that is certainly an
IRENE estimate of the distance between
IN. Accept that estimate, however. Tor
moment, and then measure Ave feet