Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-11-25
IN THE BALANCE
able Counsel for Tho Chicago Nnatch.
lists Fills a Motion for supposed.
eae IN Their Bchalf.
me hsidehce ana the Instructions OF the
Court in the Recent Trial REVERSED.
Some strong roinss Made.
TnyIN0 ro aAyn rnrIn 800.

N'N"fN"t WYNN were ytettfuhy lAic uc
fore Justice Scott by Capt. BLACK and
Leonard Sweet, OF the counsel for the
condemned anarchists, oompflsod 1850
printed pages u was prepared during
the past four days, and II not offered AZ a
complete resume Of the alleged errors Of
Judge Gary, The attorneys and counsel.
however, eateUm IL eunlvIuntlv mil
20 answer the purpose In View
Attention ~ trRt called 10
tue provisions ~ the federal constitution
that all accused persons shall have an
Impartial jury The appellants olaim
that tho Illinois statute OF 1874 must be
construed In comfortably with the oonsll.
tutloual provision that an accused person
snail have An impartial Jury. They hold
That Judge Gary recognized tho statute
alone ne though u were the only proyis.
lon In existence Va reference TO the right
OF tllal by jury. This mattoris discussed
AZ great length, the Oxamina.
tlon Of several rejected taloemen being
glyou as well as that OF accepted
Jurors Grlevpus complaint IL made Of
The conduct Of Henry L.'ltlCc, special bal.
llh appOiu,od 70 summon ialosmen. He
Il accused OF "mOst outrageous conduct -
The appellants renew the claim modo by
them AZ the tlmo 81 Tho trial that tho
state should have been allowed ouiy
twenty perenptOry challenges hghinat All
Tho defendants, After the state had OK.
croised twenty pcremptory challenges The
defense objected TO each succeeding one,
60 tho numuor OF over atty In oil
GA the subject ni Instructions TO tho
Jury, tho counsel for tho deienna saysi
oar objections 10 the action oil tho unuft
ia ihis behalf may be summarized as FOL.
loves
lnairucuons tho court proceeded
upon the erroneous theory that the dc,
PENDANTS might be convicted without 10
ga evidence II they advised or knew Of
inc commission or the proposed commits.
Hlon " the net by the principal
In the most vital instructions In
behalf Of the state thorc was an omission
81 all reference 10 tho evidence, Under
thls Instruction the jury were permitted
60 act ON general Information aud general
no matter from what source,
aud were not required TO govern their
hndings by the evidence.
o. distinctions allowing tho Jury 20
consider whether the bomb might have
been thrown under "A sudden provocGtlnn
caused by supposed unlawful attacks OF
tho police, whereby the crime might have
boon reduced IN degree, were refused.
4, Tho court gave lnstructlon In
which 10 undertook To- summarize all the
IN The case, and this con.
dcnsed instruction was fatally defective,
D. Tho action OF tho court IN relation
TO Instructions asked 10 behalf OF Louis
LinRg wae grossly erroneous.
q The Instruction In reference 10 tho
form u verdict was defective Ia that II
left tho jury no alternative but 10 convict
OF murder or aCqult. We insist that on,y
under this nsttugtion IN connection with
the refusal 60 direct hn hoqulttAl Of Oscar
N g can the verdict against that do.
PENDANT DO explained
z. We insist that the Instructions
were erroneous IN view OF the indictment
and evidence IN the case Tho
closing argument OF tho ptaio'H ut
torney wae improper IN its statement
OF matters not Ia the evidence, la It's
appeal 10 the prejudice and passions OF
the Jury, IN ita misstatements Of issuos,
and IN ITS abuse Of the defcndaniai all
huylne n tendency 20 mlplCad aud prevent
an impartial verdict
Taxing up Che indictment and evidence
the defendants brici rtcitns IN class had
dotaila the facts brought out at The trial,
with which Tho public IS familiar. The
defense then refers 70 speeches, cunyorph.
tlonB, and publications OF tho defendants,
whlGn it maintains were, nv the worst
full OF prejudice, OF Impending conflict
between laburrrs and capitalists. Tue
lnboriBg men were urged 10 prepare
themselves with guns and reyolyors. Tho
use Of dynamite wan commended In tho
warfare that WAS predicted, ills cleimed
that none Of Che speeches over Counseod
conflict % worldug people NJ liked
date or designated place lOr bringing
on Of the content Tho book Of J0han
Most introduced IN the evidence, u
10 maintained, was pu1liBhod several
years ago, The testimony ala
u0t show that either uf the defendants
ever fehd the hook, sold or gave n away.
lb0 defence elaine that tho theory ut the
aiata respecting conspiracy 10 bring
about revolution could not have been
maintained, except for tho Introduction
OF uerr Most's book The minds OIL
inc iuryman were Influenced by The 10.
cital Of the bloody theories contained
IN the book which wac read 70 them. For
tb,eo ti,aori,. ~. hriHf doclatesl tho de-
lhtht iutOIltti luU
fendaulH were not Responsible. Tho pro.
duclDg before Tho jury OF iags and mot
toee carried 10 puzzle procesaious IN Chi
cago, II ia claimed, tended to prejudice
tho caso OF tho defendants The
same assertion ~ made respect.
Ing tie introduction Of explosives
and weapons. The testimony Of w M,
Thompson aud Harry l.. 6iimor, The only
wltnesaoa by whom tho state attempted a..
rectiy 10 imploatc the defendants Win
tho throwing of ihU bomb, N considered
40 length II Is claimed that the teati.
moDy OF Spies, schwab and Others ex-
ploded Gllmer'a story.
In cumming up ihs evidence, the de-
fcneo says The inol ~, Tbs evidence
shows That none OF these defendants
knew that the bomb was 10 Oe thrown ~
anyone IL prescnt8 an instance Of a
meeting woero eOfnn ono unknown 10 the
public ana 20 these gsfendHnts, throw a
bomb and did killing, asd the question
Is whether the defendants are ~ BIO con
ylcted az accessories 20 tAe crime they
aid not know was 10 DO commltfedi aud
ia which the really guilty party 10 as M.
known To them ~ " the public. Upon
THIS proof our position 10, that the state