, 1888-10-26

Question No. 4.-Does it pretend to
say that the employment of Pinkerton
detectives by Mr.. Stoll was of any ad
vantage to the county?
In only three cases did Mr.. Stoll en-
ploy detectives, viz: the Patterson, the
Tom Hall case, and the Fort Laramie
cases. These cases were before the court
simultaneously, and certain witnesses
whose testimony was known and consid-
eFed-Hital- to these cases. could not be
located or procured as well or cheaply by
the ordinary assistance of deputy sheriffs.
The employment was resorted to with a
full understanding by and concurrence of
the county commissioners for the purpose
of saving expenses. Two of these cases,
the Patterson and Laramie river, in
volved perhaps as wide a range of com
plicated and covered circumstances as any
in the history of American jurisprudence,
and, considering the cases, the territory
where they were committed, the number
of trials, the conduct of them, the cost
incident and results reached, they were
phenomenally and peculiarly economical.
Question No 5.-Will it assert that
the bringing from far distant points the
SO called experts was justified by the re-
suits?
We say that the trial of both the Pat
terson and Fort Laramie cases, without
the aid of experts would have been a
judicial farce. The bones and blood of
the murdered victims were the silent wit
nesses in each OF these cases, and they
could not be legally understood or inter
preted but by experts. In these cases
there were three out of the five parties
convicted, and Patterson escaped on a
legal technacality for which Mr.. Stoll was
not responsible.
Question No. 6.-What has THE LEAD
Err to say of the large outlay for witnesses
who came all the way from Texas. but
could not, as every lawyer knows, legally
give any testimony?
The witne sses were brought here from
Texas, as the Sun w,il knows, for the
purpose OF proving ~ nurderous charac-
ter of Bill Mccoy. The presence of these
UiehSooSo oplhCO OuC VI UuG guns VI Tie
defense and prevented them from proving
the good character of Mccoy, which could
have been done by witnesses in Wyoming
Territory. Mccoy had always borne a
good reputation in this territory from the
time he came here until he murdered
Charley Gum. Mr.. Stoll could not COM
bat this by any evidence he could procure
in Wyoming. He knew that McCoy was
an outlaw from Texas, and he also knew
that unless he could prove that fact the
evidence of good character which Mccoy
could procure in Wyoming might reduce
the verdict of the jury to manslaughter or
work his acquittal. 1t was his duty, as
every respectable lawyer will say, to be
prepared to combat every position taken
by the defense. He was obliged TO go to
Texas and bring men here who knew that
Bill Mccoy was an outlaw and a muir
derer. The fact hat these men
were here prevented the defense
from introducing evidence of good
character, and every lawyer knows, and so
should every editor. that bad character
cannot be shown ON the part of the prose
cution until good character is attempted
to be shown on the part of the defense.
There is no question in the mind of any
lawyer who heard the trial of Mccoy,
that had he been able to establish a good
character, that good character would have
thrown doubt upon the question as to
whether he or Gum was the a~ssaulting
party and this doubt would have worked
in McCoy's favor and reduced the verdict
of the Jury to manslaughter, or his &C.
quittal.
Mccoy was convicted Of murder in the
first degree, by Mr.. Stoll's prudence in
having men here who prevented the de,
fense from attempting to establish good
character. If the Sun is the organ of
Bill Mccoy and his friends it has a per.
feet right to c~riticise Mr.. StolIs prosecu-
ton of that case, but public sentiment in
this community justiies that prosecution
and that verdict.
Question No. Upon what basis can
The LEADER explain the second trial OIL
Patterson, after Judge Maginnis went be-
fore the county commissioners and said
what he did to them about the inadmissa-
bilitY of the evidence of the chief witness
upon the first trial?
As this question insinuatingly makes
an unjust charge against Judge Maginnis,
it ought perhaps to be passed over with
silent contempt. We do not believe that
Judge MaginnIs would so far forget the
proprieties of the position he occupies as
to do what the San here charges him
with. Judge Maginnis knows that it is
no part of a judges duty, or part of his
office, to advise commissioners n , 10 uhai