, 1889-09-26

ground. Tho attorneys for the defense
had conducted their case wholly on
theories; they had employed theories to
prove something which could only be
viewed the testimony of the witnesses In
the order which they testified. Colonel
Nash had stated that one witness had
gone to the Office of one of the attorneys
for the prosecution (Winston) and re-
quested correction made and that II
was not done. The speaker reminded
Colonel Nash of the fact that when the
witness referred to had stated on the
stand that he himself had made the
change he (Winston) had placed the
paper under the witness nose. and that
he then adm ittcd that ii was something
else he had changed.
Swarts and Downs had both watched
the tent from the same motive, but the
attorneys for defense had not seen tit to
give 20 much attention to Swarts' testi-
mony as to the testimony of Downs.
The truth of the matter was that Swarts
had kicked and caused an investigation
while Downs had not Attorneys for
the defense had repeatedly asserted that
the prosecution was trying to sniirch tho
defendant and other honorable citizens
in connection with this matter. Every
man who improperly took goods from
the relief tent ought to bc sniirched so
black that whenever he wandered over
the world he would never be mistaken
for an honest man. II had been hoped
by every man who did not desire 10 see
an innocent man convicted that some
thing would be offered by the defense
to explain away the damaging testimony
of these witnesses, but not n word had
been offered. 1t was left to the ingenu
ity of counsel to explain n away. Major
Waters had been almost constantly at the
tent, neither by authorityiof his office In
the militia nor by authority of the COM
mittce. All the talk about the taking of
the goods openly disappeared IN view of
the condition of affairs prevailing mt that
time. There was no way OF any body
knowing whether the goods being loaded
under direction of Major Waters were
going to the house of some poor and de-
serving family or to his own residence
Colonel Moore had asserted that in any
event the taking of the goods was not
grand larceny, but series Of petit lar
cenies. Upon this principle q man
could steal am entire bin OF
wheat, n peck at time, and
could only be punished for petit
larceny, requiring 1000 indictments for
each peck taken. The claim bad been
made by the attorneys for the defense
that the goods taken by defendant were
used to feed the people, but only two
ii'tc ciliuith s'olIhus ~. "''vhu""'
house had been mentioned In this con
nection. Harry Hayward had testified
that he had only charged Waters with
one load. and Mr.. Hayward's testimony
was unimpeached. A crime had been
committed and proved and defendant
should bo bound over. Colonel Win
ston's argument was eloquent, logical
and to the point,
Major Waters was present all day as
usual, accompanied by his wife, who
has been present every day during the
trial. The major was observed To weep
frequently during the arguments of
counsel.
DECISION RESERVED.
Judge Dunning thanked the counsel
for their uniform courtesy, and stated
that as he desired TO give the case thor
ough consideration he would avail him
self of his privilege of rescrving dccision
for a day or two. lie then designated
Thursday at o A. NJ. as the time when
he would render his decision, the defend
ant TO remain under his present bonds
until that time.
THE OTHER chsrg.
Mr.. Ridpath asked tls,, she eases Of
earlier than the middle Of next week, as
1t would be impossible for him to attend
to them before that tine.
Colonel Winston, of counsel for the
territory, said he was ready tn proceed
with those cases at once, and he desired
to dispose of them as soon as possible.
Mr. Ridpath said the defense was also
anxious for a speedy hearing Justice
Dunning then fixed the time for hear.
ing OH Thursday of next week at o a. NJ,
Court adjourned at i. NJ.