Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-03-12
THE ARGUMENTS BEGIN
AND THE BEGINNING OF THE END
COMES IN SIGHT.
Prosecutor Huiing for the State, and
Colonel Taylor for the Defense, Di.
vide this Day In Summing up the Case
20 tho jury.
CoLrNRus Marcn 1c.

noon. Colonel Taytor spoke for the de-
Tense during the afternoon, and had not
concluded his remarks when court al
journed He will be followed on Monasy
by Judge Nash for the State The argu-
ments will occupy the greater part Of next
week
After brief reference to his physical
condition, Mr.. Huling proceeded with his
argument He said there was more in
volved in this case than the guilt or inno-
cence of the accused The case is larger
than the liberty of Robert Montgomery.
1t involved issues which shall reach outslr
beyond the present generation. This ques-
ton Is the question of manhood suffrage.
IL Robert b. Montgomery was innocent he
should not be convicted, but if he is guilty,
then the jury in not convicting him, would
be guilty of greater crime than be COM
mitted
Mr. Hulins then addressed himself to
the question of prejudice which % often
affected the decision of juries. He said
that this crime was one which threatened
TO undermine the foundations of the Re-
public, and if it went unpunished there
would be license for similar crimes. Mr..
Huling said that wherever constitutional
liberty was the safeguard of mankind, the
people were looking with anxiety toward
the twelve men before him. In beginning
his argument he said that when the sun
went down on the evening of election day in
October, 1885, Robert B. Montgomery had
no doubt of his election TO the office of
Prosecuting Attorney. Mr.. Huling argued
from this that the defendants disappoint-
ment was greater than would otherwise
have been the case. and that he was all the
more ready to welcome an invitation to OBJ
tain his seat by false means by reason of
the fact that the defeat was unexpected.
Mr. Huling next argued that the crime
must have been committed by some one
interested in the result He then
addressed himself to the question
raised by the defense, that the forgery was
awkwardly planned and committed. He
argued that this was q mistake, ami cited
the fact that the returns in question were
at first counted in proof of his assertion.
Mr.. Huling then argued at length as to the
motive of Mr.. Montgomery to commit the
crime, and the opportunity afforded him
commit it on account of his intimate ac-
qusintance with the employees at the Court
House. The various steps taken by the
members of the alleged conspiracy were
traced by Mr.. Huling. He thought
the method of influencing the, decision
of canvassing board by newspaper
articles very unusual. He referred to tho
efforts made by Mr.. Montgomery to gst
prominent Democrats to see Squire Martin,
and to the efforts made to induce tho
Squire to 20 out and see Judge Thurman,
and in this connection paid . high tribute
70 the Judge, saying that they were mistaken
in supposing that Judge Thurman would
presume to advise . judicial officer AZ to
his official duty. All of these methods to
secure the defeat of the expressed will of
the people because q couple of poll-books
had been left, unsigned, showed the great
anxiety existing for the election of certain
Democratic candidates. Mr.. Huling then
took up the testimony of Mr.. Joyce as to
the coneersation with Montgomery
on Thursday in which the lat
ter is said to have asked that
the count be postponed until Monday
Mr. Huling attempted TO make q strong
point out of this request and said that it
could not be explained consistently with
the innocence Of the defendant. He then
discussed the visit of Mr.. Montgomery Sun.
day afternoon and argued that the evidence
upon their point tended 10 show that it
was the defendants intention 10 take the
papers away with him. The conversation
with Mr.. Joyce on East Broad street was
discussed At length. and q point was At
tempted TO be made out of the fact that
Nr. Joyce refused, according to his testi-
mony, 10 accede to Montgomery's demand
that it was Mr.. Montgomery's object
eeeded, the mouths of Theodore Beck and
John Getreu would have been forever closed,
as they would have been accomplices in
Nontgomery'I guilt The same would have
been true OF Joyce Mr.. Hulins argued
that the fact Of the denial by the defendant
Of these circumstances. was a strong indica-
ton of guilt Mr.. Huling then took up
the testimony of B. II. Brooks, Simon Ev-
ans and J. N. Lowe As to Mr.. Montgomery's
D.
ridiculed the explanation of the defense of
Granville's midnight visit 70 Montgomery's
residence as one of the thinest stories he
had ever heard. He argued against the
probability of the story that Mr.. Montgom-
cry did not read the article after Granville
had taken it out to him. He pointed out tho
fact that Mr.. Montgomery testified that he
told Granville when he left his office that
he was going home. Mr.. Myers, on the
other hand. testified that. when he was in
,he Converse building Sunday midnight,
Granville, in response to his inquiry As
20 Bob's whereabouts, replied that he didn't
know where he had gene. Mr. Hulins dis
cussed Myers order TO the hackman, to
drive Granville 10 Seventeenth street, as
testified TO by Potter and Granville. He
said that the fsct that the hack stopped
on Broad street instead of in front Of Mont
somery's residence, pointed unerringly to
Montgomery's guilt. Mr.. Hui ng closed
by sdjuring the twelve men in the box to
do right though the heavens fall He had
spoken Just three hours, it being . few
minutes after twelve when he closed Mr..
Hulings speech was forcible presentation
Of the circumstantiai evidence of the case.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The court room was packed at 2 o'clock,
the crowd being considerably larger than in
the forenoon. shortly after two Colonel
Taylor arose and commenced his argument
He opened his speech by calling the jury's
attention 10 the presumption of law that
the defendant.was innocent until proved
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The at
tention OF the jury was also directed to the
distinction between the proof required in
civil and criminal cases. and they were
asked 10 bear these principles in mind dur
ing the argument.
Colonel Taylor then called attention to
the fact that the defendant was charged
with forging the Thirteenth ward tally
sheet, and that the State had rested its case
principally upon the alleged forgery of the
Ninth ward tally sheet.
Colonel Taylor said that there was no
legal evidence that Robert b. Montgomery
forged the Thirteenth ward tally sheet He
pointed out that the testimony of Breitin-
ger as TO the conversation with Myers,
could not be considered as substantive
proof against the defendant, and told the
jury that they would be so charged by the
court, He said that the State had failed to
make the connection between the Ninth
ward and the Thirteenth ward forgeries;
that even admitting the truth of the forg-
ing of the Ninth ward tally sheet that did
not bear upon the guilt or innocence of the
defendant Of the crime charged in tho in
6ictment
Colonel Taylor then took up the alleged
forgery of the Ninth ward tally sheet, and
minutely dissected Granville's story which
he denounced as an unskillful lie.
Allen o. Myers would never have confidsd
his purpose TO commit an infamous crime
against the laws of the State 10 such man