The Portland daily press., 1890-03-13
STAIN AND CROMWELIS LAST HOPE.
The Law Court OverruIes the Motion
for a New Trial.
Why the Justices Believe the Respon-
dents Barron's Murderers.
Review OF the Evidence Fastening the
Crime on the Prisoners.

| BANGOR, March 1.-Two men who have
attracted large share of public attention
for two years past will change their quarters
from the Bangor Jail to the state prison at
| ThomastOn. The decision Of the law court
on the motion for a new trial of David L..
Stain and Oliver Cromwell, convicted of the
murder of John W. Barron of Dexter, has
been rendered and overrules the motion. The
decision says:
Foster. Jon the evening Of February
| y, 1878, John w. Barron, cashier of the
Dexter Savings Bank, was found within the
vault of the bank, wounded, gagged. hand
cuded, unconscious and in dying condi-
tlon. A few hours later death resulted. Ten
years from that time the respondents were
indicted, tried and convicted OF the murder
Oh tnlS man. ThereupOn general motion to
set aside the verdict was filed, and also mo-
tion Tor new trial on the ground Of newly
discovered evidence. These motions were
addressed to and heard by the chief Justice
OF tnlS court who presided at the trial. The
motions having been denied, an appeal was
s tie tRets fap5t aud The question before
10 denying these motions for a neNaetsian
Our determination must be based upon the
record which has been presented before us,
and which is very yOluminous comprising
about 1900 printed pages of testimony from
more than 150 witnesses. Upon the COM
or innocence OF the respondents depend.
With the utmost care and diligent research
in the investigation of this case have we ex-
amined this vast volume of testimony, and
the conclusion to which this court, by unau-
lmous opinion, has ultimately arrived, is,
that the decision of the court below, deny
ing these motions, was correct.
An examination of the record discloses two
classes OF evidence relied on by the govern
ment as fastening the guilt upon these re-
legged confessions of both respondents in re-
lation to the crime, and their Identification
and presence within the state and in the i'm
mediate vicinity of these operations on two
previous occasions the year before, and also
their Identification and presence in Dexter
and in and about the bank building on the
day on which the murder was committed.
These two classes of evidence, while not in
any sense dependent upon each other, are
nevertheless in most remarkable and strik-
ing degree In all their essential particulars
entirely consistent, and in harmony with
each other.
The story. as told by Charles F. Stain, of
his fathers confessions to him, and as to
what occurred on two former trips of explo-
ration from Massachusetts into Maine in
1877, was the starting point from which the
government was able to develop, by testimo-
ny entirely independent of this witness, a
chain of evidence of such strength as left no
doubt in the minds of the jury of the COM
MISSION OF the crime charged, and Of the
guilt OF these respondents. That
evidence, when discovered, stands upon its
own merit inasmuch as it is entirely discon-
nected with the testimony of young Stain,
which was but the key which unlocked the
chambers OF this crime ana made plain all
the evidence OF these mems guilt. However
much of truth or fiction the disclosures of
this man may be supposed to contain, there
Is certainly one fact which stands out trans
cendently above all others, and that is, that
these disclosures have led to the discovery
OF most important evidence against the ac-
cused which would never have been discov-
cred without his aid. While large part of
the:testim0ny discloses evidence whose only
OBJECT and purpose is to impeach this wit
ness, it is most striking and significant
phase OF the governments case, that it Is in
no sense dependent upon the credibility of
this witness. The governments case does
not rest upon the testimony of Charles f.
Stain alone. 1t is not whether the story of
heved or not. The conviction of these men
was not based upon that. Yet one of the
most forciblesdemonstration ofthe substan-
tlal truth OF the testimony of young Stain, in
al the material elements of the case, is, that
it is so completely in harmony with SO many
independent facts and circumstances, and
the testimony OF so many independent
and distinct witnesses. Affir-
nations and denials by word of
mouth MOI may be fabricated; but circumstances
latter is the crucible wherein to test the
truth or falslty of the former. The corrob-
orati0ns of this witness in his accusation
against the prisoners are not few or acciden-
tai, but many and various, each imparting
and receiving strength from the other. With
the story of young Stain as the starting point
the government next sought corrob0ratiye
information from John f. Harvey, who for
years was an associate of the respondents,
but who for long ime had lived apart from
y a IC a hnr in 1ar.v ,E IaF1
ant Stain, and testified to statements and
concessions made to him by Cromwell five
years before the trial and before the story of
Charles f. Stain. This information was not
volunteered on his part. nor did he confess
interview made on behalf of the government
in June or July, 1887. This witness is also
supported in the details and circumstances
OF this CONFIDENTIAL admission confded by
TTSmWen Saa1 nmd :, to o. him him in the fall Of
Cromwell to another government witness
tending strongly towards confession, and
which Cromwell upon the stand found it
very difficult to deny. Very many of the
details given In the story of young Stain in
relation to circumstances and transactions
prior to this tragedy, are also given by
Harvey, with little chance of confederation
between them.
But how is this testimony and the case of
the the government met on the part of the de-
avoidance-not one which admits that there
had been excursions from Medfeld into
Maine prior to 1873, in which young Stain
had accompanied these respondents for
proper and legitimate purposes, but that the
father never confessed that he was in Dexter
in February, 1S7S--or that Cromwell, al
though admitting other crimes to Harvey
his former associate, had never acknoWl-
edged his guilt in this affair. No. The de-
Tense strikes deeper and bolder than that.
c IL,
hand and that the prisoners had no connec-
ton whatever with his death: that they
never made any preliminary excursions into
Maine prior to his death; and that they
were never in Dexter in their lives, and that
the testimony Of young Stain and Harvey is
wholly false and devoid of any foundation.
The decision then states that the testi-
mony of Charles f. Stain that the respond
ents made two excursions for exploration to
| Maine and into Dexter before the murder of
Barron is incontrovertibly corroborated by
other witnesses.
But the most important evidence, perhaps.
| In the case is that which was offered to prove
that the prisoners were seen in Dexter dur-
| ing the day of Barron's death. Upon this,
as well as in explanation aud confederation
of the other evidence, depended the great
power of the governments case. The i'm
portant and convincing facts which over
| throw all defense, in connection with the
fact that these respondents had made other
and previous visits into Maine, and which
| went to prove the guilt Of these two men,
were, that witness after witness of intelli.
| gence and responsibility saw and identified
| them under a great variety of circumstances !:
sometimes singly, sometimes together; and
picked them out as being two of the men and
strangers whom they saw in the town of
| Dexter on that fatal day. This evidence in
| relation to Identification is both direct and
| circumstantial. 1t comes from large num-
| ber of witnesses Some saw them while going
| to Dexter, others saw them in Dexter, and
| others identify them in their flight on the
evening of the day of the tragedy, and still
| others in the early morning and in the fore
noon of the next day, still in their flight from
| town. Some witnesses positively identity
| these men, while others do this indirectly.
| and corroborate numerous witnesses by the
| description of their manner and bearing, by
| the color of their dress, and the appearance
| of the horse driven by them. All the wit
| nesses give reasons for their remembering as
| they do, and state circumstances. The
| proof of identity is not confined to the single
| fact of the recognition Of the faces of the
| prisoners. There are many circum-
| stances and condolences combining with
| that, which have great weight on the ques-
| tion of Identification, and which are detailed
| in connection with the general statement of
| the witnesses. 1t may seem strange at first
| thought that the witnesses are enabled to
| remember and identify these men after so
| long q time. Under ordinary circumstances
| this would be true But it must be borne in
| mind that in consequence of the sudden and
| draadfuI ehocl, nroduced by the daoth "a