Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-08-20
GIVEN TO THE JURY.
THE STATES ATTORNEY CLOSES HIS
SPEECH IN THE ANARCHISTS TRIAL.
Judge Gary Instucs the Jury as to the Law in the
Case-Ths Definitions OF Conspiracy and
Murder.A Reasonable DJubt-What
Evidence 70 Consider and What Not

| long before the proceedings commenced.
the sidewalks confronting the building
! were crowded with men, women and chill
dren, the women both inside and out 0l
the court Outnunbering the male specta-
I tors three to one. The Anarchists looked
worried, the strain of the long trial, the
damaging evidence brought out against
them, the scathing denunciatiOn of their
plotting and their hellish designs admins
tered by States Attorney Grinnell, making
them alive TO their real situation.
Mr.. Grinnell resumed his address this
morning, and spoke As follows: Govern
ment is OH trial Murder has been COM
mitted, and it is sought to know who is
responsible. For few days after the Hay
market riot il was not thought 1t was farther
reaching than the results of the intiamatory
speech making. 1t was not until after the
magnificent efforts of Captain Setback that
conspiracy was developed. Then Schnau-
belt was discovered 1t was not until al
ter Spies was arrested that it became ap-
parent that man was capable of the hell
iSh act in which he was concerned. These
men were Anarchists and their creed is no
government, no law. Until placed on the
stand these men never hedged on that
definition 1t WAS sought to be shown
that the defendants were barking dogs that
would not bite
These men are on trial, law is on trial,
anarchy is Oh trial for treason. The penal
ty of treason is death. 4 man can commit
an overt act OF treason and not Kill any
body. ISit any less treason because seven
men are killed and Sixty are wounGed:
There is no statute of limitation for threats
when repeated threats resulted in the COM
mission of the deed. For years past on the
Lake front and at the different So-called
SocialiStic half in the city, these men had
preached the USE of dynamite, poison and
daggerS us 4 means of ctiecting the social
revolution.
At2 o'clock. on the convcning of the
Court.
In his instructions, after giving the usual
definitions OF what WAS murder and what
its punishment is under the statutes, said:
The Court inStructS the jury rs matter
of law that in considering the case the jury
are not To 90 beyond the evidence to hunt
up doubts, or must they entertain such
doubts aS are merely chimerical or cOnicc-
tural. \ doubt 10 Justify IN acqulttal
must DE reasonable and il must arise from
Il candid and impartial investigation OF all
thccyidence in the case, and unless ii iSSuch
that were the same kind of a doubt inter
posed in the .ravcr transactions of life II
would cause reaSOnableand prudent man
To hesitate and pause. 1t is insufficient to
authorize verdict OF not guilty. ltaltcr
considering all the evidence you can say
YOU have an abiding conviction OF the
truth OF the charge, yOu are satisfied be-
vonl reasonable doubt, the Court in
Struct the jury, as matter OF law, that
AN ACCESSORY
is one who aids ahctS, or assists, or who,
not being present aiding, abetting or AS
SiSting. has advised, encouraged, aided or
abettcd the preparation of the crime.
He who thus aids, abctS and adj
yiSrs or encourages shall lie
considered as principal and punished ac-
cordim.ly. Every such accessory when
crime is committed within or without this
State by his aid ar procurement in this
State may be indicted and convicted at the
same time ~ the principal, or before or
after his conviction. and whether the
principal is convicted or amenable To
Justice or not and punished aS 4 principal
Ifthc defendants attempted to overthrow
the law by force and threw the bomb, then
the defendants who were in the conspiracy
were guilty OF murder. II there
was an anarchist conspiracy
and the defendants were partial
they are guilty of murder though the date
ofculminatiOn of the conspiracy w;ls not eX-
pircd. II any OF the defendants conSpired
To excite, by advice, people To riot and
murder. such defendants are guilty 0t such
Murder Was done in pursuance Oi con
<piracy, the imPractlcableleSo Of the aims
of the defendants immatcrlal. ENldence
is competent to prove guilt, and II the lie
PENDANTS conspircd to overthrow the law,
and Degln was killed. in consequence the
parties are guilty, and il is not necessary
that any of the defendants were present Al
the killing. All parties 10 the conspiracy
are equally guilty.
uIECTMSTA&TIAL EVIDENCE Nj Sr~ATlSFY
the Jury beyund 4 reasonable doubt. In
such a case the jury may lind deiendentN
guilty. When the defendants testified IN
the case they stood on the same ground aS
other witnesses The jury can take into
account the interest OF the witness. IT
anv one of several defendants has lied rs
witness. then the jury should only believe
such part of his testimony Is has been cor
federated.
The jury were not 10 90 beyond evidence
TO hunt up doubts Doubt must arise
naturally from evidence and the jurors
must act n they would IN the
ordinary affairs Of life. \ doubt
must bc reasonable one.
Svmpathy does not constitute n reasonable
doubt. The jurors must believe a. men
where there was no oath Ia witnesses. Ju-
rors were Judges OF the law and fact, but
should not 80 against the court without
full considerations. The jury might find
any or all the defendants guilty or not
guilty, and could tx the penalty for all.
If found guilty nf murder, or of anything
else the sentence should lie tiAed IN ac-
cOrIlance with the statute.
FORMS OF THE VERDICT
were given to the jury providing for all
sentences and also acquittalS. For the de-
PENDANTS instructions were that if the jury
understood the law better than the judge
they should 80 act. Before the jury can
convict the defendants they must find them
guilty beyOHd all reasonable doubt. Mere
probabilities no nol constitute guilt. Per
Sonal opinions OF facts not proved are IN
competent The jury are the sole judges
and can consider the interests of witnesses
which might color their testimony. Wal
Ter and Seigler were accomplices and
their testimony should he viewed with
great care. Ii Waller and
Sigler testified from hope of reward.
Such fact should determine the weight OF
their testimony. II any of the States
witnesses testified from hope OF reward,
the same rule should apRly. The jury
should act with great caution upon the tes-
timony of acoomplices, and should be sat
isfied of its truth before finding the defend