The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-17

Is probable cause for holding or Delieving
that the defendant has committed an oiense.
Whether he has or not is answered by the testi-
mony in the case. Now what il the testimony
IN this case on which to base the theory an
nounced BY the prosecuting attorney that Rob
ert b. Albertson directly concocted the
scheme. or participated In the stealing OF this
property or In counseling. aiding or abetting 1t.
Hyour honor will recall the testimony, as
doubtless your honor will and does, there 10 not
in this regard one scintlIla OF evidence connect
ing Mr. Robert b. Albertson with this transac-
ton, exception what Mr. Robert ID. Albertson
himself has freely stated to you. When the
state had closed its case on yesterday there was
absolutely no testimony that would have sup
ported the charge against Robert b. Alberfson,
and II Robert B. Albertson instead oil having
been an attorney at law, and as my learned
friend well says, a prominent man in his COM
Inunity, had been the obscurest and
humbest individual in the state,
had he been q bad man instead OF
being one OF pure and stainless ana oiameless
lie III the past, had he been criminal ana had
been his attorney, would have made with abso-
lutte confidence motion 70 this court TO dismiss
the prosecution aud the whole proceedings
made against him on the testimony that was in
troduced by the state and | believe that your
honor will readily say that the motion would
have been promptly granted, but owing to the
circumstances OF this case l felf IL my duty TO
my client, and under my clients direction like
wise. to open the door and give as full and free
an investigation as il was possible Tor the state
to make by submitting the defendant to the
most rigid and searching cross examination that
the ablo prosecutor could give him upon this
whole matter.
The witnesses called for the prosecution by my
learned friend were Mr.. I. b. Wallace Willie
Williams. Hugh Wallace, II. d. Powell, L. D.
Campbell. j. Kochersberger, T. q. McNaughton,
EfnE
will remember that Mr.. wallace's testimony
nowhere touched Mr.. Robert B. Albertson
except at one point He stated that Mr.. Robert
b. Albertson came to his bank at
some time 49, the date has now passed
from my memory - but after this rob-
berry of the bank, and in the course OF
the conversation stated that he had not seen his
cousin for year, and afterwards said that he
had not seen him since sometime last spring,
seeking, of course, to imply from that that the
defendant wished to conceal the fact of having
had any recent communication with Mr.. Ed
ward Albertson. Of course that particular
point in the testimony, standing as IL did, was of
no value whatever, because the witness himself
stated that upon reflection Mr. K. B. Albertson
said, 81 saw him in the spring" Mr.. Williams,
the messenger boy, testified to the effect that he
had never seen the man who gave him the
message from that day. He thought
there was some little resemblance between
him and the defendant, but he stated again that
81 have never seen that man before or since"
The testimony of Mr. Wallace, Mr.. Powell and
Mr.. Campbell nowhere touched r. p. Albertson.
The testimony of Mr.. j. p. kochersperger was
simply statement OF what Mr.. Albertson had
said to him. II the statement were all true il
was not ineriminatng upon Mr. Albertson, but
the statement was confessedly part false. Mr..
kochersperger came upon the stand with an os-
tentatious lie in his mouth. He swore that he
was not detective. He was not called upon
to make that statement. He swore that
he was not detective, confidently relying on
the fact that nobody knew that he was. Now
there are two ways to state falsehood. You
can state 1t directly, or by suggestion. Unques-
tionably his purpose was to make that state
ment IN such way as to create an impression
that he was entirely free and clear from this de-
tective business. lie then stated upon oath,
thinking that there would be 10 possible con-
tradiction except by Mr.. Albertson, that
Mr.. Albertson was in the room for three
hours And then this beautiful specimen
comes forward on the stand and says he made
mistake; that his watch was set by Chicago
time; that he got Albertson into the room by
Tacoma time and let him out by Chicago time.
That is exactly what his testimony IS And his
statements, therefore, that he, in high handed
fashion had told Mr.. Albertson that he was not
half through with him yet, and had locked the
door and said, "You cannot go out" are not to
be believed, and ii they were believed the man
states under oath al infamous thing. No man
has right 10 talk to another in that kind of q
way in the United States of America--at least
have not heard that it can be successfully
done McNaughton gave no testimony that
in any way CONNECTED Mr.. Albertson.
Mr. Perkins testimony was powerful in favor
of Mr.. Albertson. His testimony was clear ant;
straightforward, and he had done what as 1
shall presently say was in a measure done by
Mr.. Albertson, he had obeyed the dictates OF
humanity in him and had gone to the relief of
the family. He was asked whether various
propositions of compromise were not made by
him. He was asked whether be did not make
statei ent to Mr.. Hugh Wallace, and he said no,
and.my learned friend was very careful not to call
anybody to contradict hint could not be done.
Mr.. Perkins testimony was clear, Ineligible
and to the point. Aside from this, too, there
was the testimony of Mr.. John II. McGraw,
which, instead of being discriminating in its
character against Mr.. Albertson, was absolutely
vindication of Mr.. Albertson, aud made, as it
Is clearly TO be seen, that impression upon Mr..
AcGraw, who was himself a sheriff for some
years. There is now the testimony of Ike Evans.
Ike Evans IL deputy sheriff. have no feeling
oil animosity toward Evans. l have feeling of
sorrow that man occupying his position could
have made such exhibition of him
SELF upon the stand as he did.
officer of SO great county as
Pierce should have been so completely in the
hands OF an unprincipled detective. ruffian and
thug as Nj. c. sullivan, as this man literally
swore that he was. He takes your honor's
warrant for an individual, charging a
felony, punishable with imprisonment, con-
nected with this stupendous robbery. He goes
to nelghboring city; he goes with this man
Sullivan and this man Kochers perger, and he
the n whOI0
days, within three blocks of where he was
staying at the hotel. and never raises his
finger to arrest him. / am sorry for
the unfortunate Mr.. Evans. He has fallen under
baneiul and evil influences; he has been as
putty In the hands of that man of iron n. c.
sullivan, and when he fiually, after he has seen
the sights OF Seattle goes to arrest Mr.. Albert
son. sullivan is on hand with a hack, to take
this man, to kidnap him-that is a fair INFER
ence from this testimony-kidnap him; that is
not the way to arrest a man when he means to
be lar and means business. And greater
prostitution OF the process OF a court
has never come to light in a
court OF justice before, aud / have no doubt
that II the man Sullivan was before your honor.
ana your honor had power to punish him Tor
the abuse of your process, that your honor
would make him feel what it was to have the
heavy hand of the law laid upon him, so that in
the future the process of court OF justice
would not be abused and scanhalized in this
way again. That is the case that was made by
the state. Now. If I was appearing for the
Dumolest ana most obscure person IN the state.
ana he had been arraigned by this testimony, L
would be perfectly justified in moving dis
missal Of this case. Now then, at that stage of
the case. what does the defense do? We
call Mr.. Albertson, and as his statement covers
the whole ground of the statements made by
tne state against him, il Will suf1ce' Tor me