The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-05-10
J. L. RAWLINS

followed in behalf of the defense The
offence charged against the defendant is
that Of wilful murder; that it was com
mitted thirty years ago and that the victim
was Sergeant Pike. The prosecution claims
| that the defense is u"re.ieVed by any re
spectacle feature The learned counsel
says we assume three distinct defenses
| first that the defendant id not kill Pike,
that if he did IL was IN self-dcfense
and third that ne was insane. This
is not so, and the burden &c upon
! the government The defendant is not
bound to prove his innocence. but the GOV
eminent must prove his gui.t. The prose
cution has utterly failed 70 make out one Of
the elements charged by them. They must
not only prove thaJ Pike was wounded but
that the wound WAS fatal. IN the dilemma
in which counsel finds himself he assumes
some very antagonistic positions. Counsel
attempts to justify the bastard who struck
down the helpless boy in the corral. And
if he can do that what shall we say of the
man who shot the deceased when he was
surrounded by his armed friends! l say
that counsel did not argue his case from the
evidence adduced from the witnesses, and
has endeavored to miSlead the jury by his
statements that they were not allowed to
show that Pike was justified in his attack
upon Spencer, intimating that he had much
information on that subject that he was
not allowed to bring out. The state
ment that Pike, when he crushed in
the skull Of the defendant, was in
the strict line of his duty is not sustained,
but rather does it show the true character
of the brutal Pike. This is nice state
ment for man to make who is now prose
cutting the defendant after the lapse of so
many years. He jumps at the conclusion
that Pike was in the custody of officers;
that Spencer conniVed with others in
~
theory is corroborated by other evidence.
And even here he misqu0tes the evidence
given by Taylor on the subject of the de
PENDANT not meeting Pike. What Green
thought is not in evidence. 1t only shows
that Taylor knowing the condition in which
the defendant was, was afraid that if he
did meet Pike trouble would ensue. They
knew that Pike was in town, and that
Spencer was liable to meet him. Why!
Because they knew that trouble would be
the most natural thing in the world if
Spencer met the bastard and the brute
who had injured him. l say that
even if Spencer did meet and shoot
down the bastard, under the circum-
stances he did no more than anyone
who understands the human heart would
expect man to do, even though he were
not in the irresponsible condition that we
say he was.
ridicule and punctured.
Hiles says the conspiracy is conclusively
proved by the testimony of Gushing and
Phillips. Gushing is the gentleman who
alleges he saw Hickman, Stringham, Luce
and Spencer appear in his back yard, in
dulge in few seconds conversation and
exchange pistols. He said that leach one
of them brought out pistol and examined
it'' If each one had a pistol, why should
Stringham have handed over his to him
Why did they want that. Because the
man Stringham is charged as co-defend-
ant And before this poor old man came
into court he is made to testify that String
ham gave Spencer a pistol, and that
Spencer killed Pike, in order to have some
proof of Stringham's guilt, if Spencer
should be convicted. Now, mark
Just what kind of a witness this
is. He saw them, watched them,
and yet he could not give one word of the
conversation that passed between them.
How the old man did work up most form
liable procession! First, he has Howard
Spencer fiourishing pistol, then follows
Bill Hickman, then George Stringham,
then Jace Luce, all crying out: "I'n drop
him; keep backr' 1t would not have sur
prise1 me indeed, it would have been the
most natural thing in the world-for him to
have rung in Porter Rockwell and a half