, 1889-09-26

tional testimony he should consider this
feature also. The claim had been made
that the defendant was being outraged.
The way. for, Major Waters to have
have been to have demanded thorough
investigation. Were he innocent
he should have insisted that avery-
thing be brought out: should have
taken the stand and told all he knew
about 1t. An innocent man would have
SAID: Here, you've got the wrong
man, want you to get to the bottom
CATION. | am not afraid TO have every.
thing brought out, for in this manner |
will prove my innocence" Defendant
had said nothing OF the kind. The only
course left the court under the circum-
stances was to hold defendant for the
action of the grand jury. Mr.. Jones was
followed by
COLONEL J. z. MOORE
of counsel for defense who said that the
counsel for the prosecution had on
deavorcd to impose upon the court that
he had no power In this case except to
bind defendant over. They had insisted
that this court was acting only In a
ministerial capacity, and that the present
case was not trial, when they they
knew wvll enough that the court was
acting In judicial capacity and that all
examinations of controversies of what
ever nature were properly termed trials.
In his capacity as commander of the
militia, the defendant had possibly been
guilty OF indiscretion or bad taste in
taking such goods rs were required to
feed those in need under his charge, but
the act could in no possible manner be
construed us gland larceny. Read from
authorities to show what constituted
grand larceny If the goods taken were
not the property of the relief committee
there were no grounds for holding the
defendants Mr.. Waters had received
place, aud II list was taken of them
by MIR. Hayward. This was the load de-
livercd by Mr.. Seahorn. Mr.. Swarts had
raised u cry that parties were getting
goods who did not need them. The COM
mittee had Investigated and found the
goods had been charged and snid it was
all right. Mr.. Hayward accepted this
action of the committee as evidence that
there was no objection to Mr. Waters re-
ceiving goods in the same manner Mr.
Waters did receive goods subsequently,
and presumed he was buying them as he
had done on the first occasion. The
goods received by Mr.. Waters were
charged as having been received on the
ith of August, but this was obviously u
mistake. The relief supplies were sent
here for those who needed them, and the
wealthy, who, owing to the scarcity of
supplies could not purchase goods them
selves, were also entitled to receive them.
Major Waters had several needy persons
in his family. There was apossibility of
u scarcity. OF provisions, and he had or
dered such goods sent to his house as
his family and others under his roof
might require. There was certainly some
mistake about Exprcssman Seahorn's S
testimony that he was instructed by
Major Waters not to let anybody see him
deliver The goods. There was no possible
reason Tor telling him anything of the
kind. The goods were delivered In broad
caylight and 1t was not reasonable TO
suppose that some of the neighbors
would not see the eXprcssman deliver
them. Ii was not AN unusual thing to see
groceries deliyeredI at residences, and
there was no reason for Major Waters 10
believe the act would attract notice. A
large amount of testimony had been
offered which would have been at once
stricken out In "A trial before the district
court. The prosecution had asserted
that this was not IL trial. The defense
would give them IA chance to have u trial
II. f.they waatcd ore. IL the prosecution,-
instead of trying to make u case of grand
larceny by putting together several acts
OF petit larceny, would bring the several
cases of petit larceny to trial, the defense
would bc pleased to show where all the
goods went. Even admitting that the
goods we're unlawiully taken, it could be
shown that no more than $50 worth of
goods had been taken at one time hence
defendant would only have been guilty
of petit larceny in each case. This series
of petit larceuies could not be aggregated
and made to constitute grand larceny.
The speaker insisted that the grand jury
could inquire into the matter even ii
defendant was discharged. Colonel
Moore was followed by
COLONEL l.. u. NASH.
In beginning the closing argument for
the defense, Colonel Nash said he would
generalize. This fire had been rich
mans lire. II had destroyed the prop
erty of those able to lose ii. The poor
man had been bcnclitedsby II, for it had
given him work. There had been con-
siderable said about the fees of the prose-
cution i'll this case A large amount had
been raised by subscription to prosecute
u case which belonged to the states at
torney. There was an unusal amount of
zeal apparen; Oh the part of somebody
in this particular case. Major Waters
had never denied that he took the goods
and never would deny IL. The commit
tee had never even asked him to pay for
the goods he had received. The speaker
said that mt the commencement of this
examination lac. (Nash) had not only
admitting the taking of the goods, but
that hc had read tho list ut
the time and would read it
now. Colonel Nash was una
BILE to read the writing, which lad be-
come somewhat aim, and handed it to
Major Waters, who stood up and read il
aloud. The attorneys for the prosccu-
ton had received large fee and were
attempting TO give value received for
their services by smirching the defendant
and endeavoring to have him bound
over. In their zeal they had been guilty
of uniairness, Notwithstanding they had
tried to convey the contrary impression.
Every single article defendant had re-
ceived he had taken in broad daylight,
by consent of those who had the right to
which had been shown by this investi-
CATION 1t was that this committee was
the most incompetent one ever
heard Of They knew nothing what
ever about what was going on at the re-
lief tent, according to their own admis-
sions. Why had not the prosecution
called J. n. Glover and Peter Duebcr
both members of the committee, to in
quire whether they had given MIR. Wa
ters permission to get goods2 Why
didn't they call the roustabouts who
were present and helped load tho goods?
Why didn't they call all these people IL
they wanted to be so fair? This was not
an investigation altogether for the sake
of Justice There was evidently some
ulterior purpose. The defendant had
led a blameless life. He had built
home here. He was not going to run
away. He would be here when the
grand Jury should meet. There could be
no harm done in discharging him and
allowing the, grand jury to Investigate