The Asheville citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1885-1889, 1888-05-18

teendays after hehad been dismissed
in his possession; did he not have
time to have a duplicate key made:
why did he not return the keys to
Capt. Weaver when he was dis
missed; was he not seen on the east
bound train at Salisbury on the
morning previous to the robbery;
was he not seen on the streets OF
Ashevi!le by two police officers who
knew his walk and figure, on the
morning of the robbery, about 2
| o'clock; was he not coming towards
them from the postofice; were those
policemen mistaken when one of
them had sworn out a warrant for
him and was on the lookout; did
not the defendant pass them going
toward the river; was he not seen on
the west-bound train the same
morning by gentleman who knew
him, and who lived in Asheville;
did not the defendant cover up his
head with a newspaper in order to
conceal his identity; did he not get
off tie train at Morristown and
send his baggage by porter to a
hotel; did he not double on the Of
ficers there and dodge and hide; did
he not elude them until about time
for train No. 2 to pull out; did not
the officer find and arrest him after
the train had pulled out of the sta
ton, after passing through the cars
once or twice; did not the defendant
deny his guilt and assume a false
name; did he not make admissions
to the officer that he was W. P.
Mckee, and that he was in trouble
about some postoffice matters at
Asheville, and did not the officer
find corresponding amount of
money on his person as tn 1t claimed
to have been stolen from the Ashe
vile postoffice; did he not tell the
officer that $40 Of that money Was
his Individual money, and request
him to make Il memorandum to that
effect; did he not say to the officer
"the other money is what you have
me for; that's what they want me
for" And then the assistant dis
trict attorney reviewed the evidence
of witnesses Hodge, Branch and
others in about similar manner.
He told the jury tina sympathy
must be laid aside and justice must
be done; he sympathized sincerely
with the defendants father, sisters
and brothers, but be was sworn
officer Of the law, the jurors were
sworn officers Of the law, and they
must enforce the law, regardless of
passions; they must convict or ac-
quit according to the weight Of evi-
dence introduced. He considered
the evidence conclusive; it was pre-
ponderating on the side of the gov
trnment, and he was absolutely
certain, from that evidence, of the
defendants guilt. Believing this he
would ask verdict of guilty at the
hands Of the jury. The assistant
district attorney made a po-:eIful
argument;cool, clear and dispassiOn-
ate, and did him great credit as a
prosecuting officer
Col. Armfield, junior counsel for
Mex ee, then arose and proceeded to
make the closing speech for
the defence. 1t was enc OF
the most powerful appeals for
an acquittal ever heard in the court
house Of Buncombe. Col. Armtieid
could not make a poor speech if he
wanted to do so, and froli the time
he arose until the concluding sen.
tence of his argument the deepest
silence reigned in the court room, 50
marked was the attention paid him.
Only once did an interruption occur
during the time the Colonel was
speaking, and that was when several
ladies entered the court room from
the rear and were shown seats on
the right of the platform.
Col. Armietd began his speech
with an explanation and condemna-
ton OF circumstantial evidence. It
could not be relied upon; it was un-
certain and unjust. He said that
judicial murders. almost beyond
mum Der, had been committed SIM
ply by the aCCeptation Of circum-
stances, without other testimony, as
positive fact. He used al illuStra-
ton or two to give additional weight
to his assertions. He then began TO
review the testimony Of Capt. Weav-
er and that gentleman's conduct in
the transaction from the beginning.
He said that CAPT. Weaver had
taught Mckee to deceive; when
Weaver took Mckee from his iather
he was an honest and truthful
young man; when he returned him
1T was as liar and accused telon;
who was the guilty ont; who had
set the young man the example;
who had set The trap to catch Me-
Kee; who was it that believed no
man to be honest; who was it that
had a deadly suspicion against his
employees? 1t was Capt Weaver,
the man who should have sbeen
IN loco PARENTS to the. young man.
But instead of that he had taught
him lies aud deception. The Colonel
went for Weaver with gloves off and
roundly did he handle him. His
remarks were severe, caustic and
condemning whenever directed to
the postmaster. At one period of
hi- speech Col. Armfeld, said that
postmaster Weaver occupied, in this
transaction, pretty much the same
status that the devil did in the Gar
den of Eden when he tempted our
first parents to commit that crime
that entailed sin, misery and death
upon humanity for all time to come.
Instead of teaching the young man
that portion of the Lords Prayer,
''lead US not into temptation" he was
aiding and abetting him in decep'
tion..and falsity. Instead.of forgiving
him for the falsehood that he told
him (Weaver) about the 50, he takes
him to his old gray-haired father