Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1891-05-24
ORA DRY
IContinued from First Page, |

| searching as 10 nave ueteCteu ahy "1" Va
untruth, and remember how they utterly
failed to shake him, YOU must conclude
that he told the facts.
The speaker then took up the fact thai
DR.. Baird had a revolver, and that 1t wa:
in such position as to make 1t dlincult tC
Get il out after be was dead, and comoatteC
the idea that it was in his pocket IN an un
usual position, but said if it had worked
itself into such a position, then that was
probably the reason why he did not shoo'
! DR.. Garrison on Eleventh street, and he
was likely endeavOring to get II out wner
he made the threatening movement under
which DR.. Garrison fired. He said II nae
| been shown DR.. Baird carried pistol tc
shoot dogs, but strange TO say. he carried
it, if the States position was true, IN such
manner that it was utterly useless Tor any
purpose -,
He took up the incident related by AL
1 bert Hadlich, at the postoffice, and rldl-
culed the idea that he had attempted &c
then shoot DR. Baird, and said had he de-
sired to have shot DR.. Baird then nothing
would have been easier. ''Yet all that this
man, with murder in his heart, as they
would have you believe, said, was, Am
that too bad Were those the words of a
murdererl" He pursued this same idea,
that DR.. Garrison had his hand on ms
revolver at other times and places, for the
purpose of killing DR. Baird, and closed IL
by saving the matter was too ridiculous,
too idle, too improbable TO be entitled To
serious credence.
The speaker next pointed out that IN
civil case the verdict followed the prepon-
derence of testimony, while IN a criminal
case the principle was essentially different,
and the defendant had to be found guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt.
He referred TO Mr.. Towards claim that
the opening for the defense was devoid of
point in the particular that they omitted
what they expected to prove, and said
the real trouble was, that the defense did
not state all it could prove, and the State
stated more than it could prove. That
was the difference in a nutshell. The de-
tense had proved more than it said 1t
could, and the State had proved
less He then took up the indictment, and
after making the usual statement that the
indictment was nothing but formal accu-
sation, went on TO say that in all criminal
cases the defendant was presumed TO be
innocent until he was shown TO be guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt; and from this
passed TO the undisputed proposition that
on an indictment for murder the presunp-
ton was murder in the second degree, the
duty of the State being 10 elevate it, and
of the defense TO lower IL TO nothing, II
possible.
He referred to the statement by the
State that there were thirteen eye-wit-
nesses of the shots, five of them having
seen both shots, and said the firing Of the
shots was the least important fact in con-
nectisn with the tragedy. The real and
great question was, what led to the firing
of the shots, land where are the thirteen
witnesses as TO thatE
He began a review of the evidence with
the testimony of Miss Lottie Walton,
French Walton and Neff Laing, using the
plat of the street 10 make himself thorough
" clear, and said the whole testimony of
the prosecution was confusing as TO
where Dr. Baird actually was; and also
exemplified the same thing by the differ
ence between the testimony of Leonard
Gerkstetter and Miss Lottie Walton as re-
CARDS the whereabouts Of DR.. Garrison, say
ing the two could not be reconciled. One or
the other must be utterly mistaken. He
did not mean that the children were com
hitting perjury, but that they could not
have seen what they said they did. Either
they were not watching DR.. Garrison, or
they were not watching DR.. Baird; they
could not have been watching both. He
followed this with reference TO language,
which he said was almost technical, being
terms not often used except by those learn
ed in the law He thought this was
an evidence of tuition by some one of a
/ legal turn of mind. Other witnesses were
characterized in the same manner.
He said the assumption had been that
after Dr. Garrison fired the first shot, and
after DR. Baird had turned away, a second
shot was fired. The speaker doubted that,
and said the evidence contradicted it, and
followed this by saying the first shot was
the fatal one, and the one to be considered,
as the second shot was not necessarily
fatal, and that it would have been the most
natural thing in the world for DR. Baird to
have moved his head a little just as the
second shot was fired. He thought DR..
Baird's position was just the position "a
man would assume when drawing pistol,
/ lust as it was DR.. Garrson's position,
and from this he said it was most
| likely the ball passing through the head
went mat the eye and came out behind the
ear, and that must have been so If the tes-
timony of Q. c. Genther and the Walton
children was to be taken. True a physi-
clan had testified differently, but he might
know, or he might not. The spectacles of
DR.. Baird, with one eyeglass broken,
had been picked up on the sidewalk, but
that was only after several hundred people
had gathered on the spot, and he thought
the spectacles proved nothing, and that the
assumption of the State that DR.. Garrison
had fired in a cowardly manner after the
deceased had turaed around, was wrong.
DR. Garrison had simply fired until the
man he was afraid of went away, and then
he turned away, just as he had always done
before when he was threatened.
The speaker referred to the statements
made by DR.. Baird after he was shot, and
said he was then in the full possession of
all his faculties, and a man wounded, in
that condition, would naturally speak of
| the circumstances if he had been wrong
| fully attacked. II say the fact of his 81
| lence is conclusive that he knew he had
done something at least to justify the
shooting. He was the last man TO have
kept silent as TO his antagonist, when the
rule is that a man mortally hurt always
makes a statement of the facts. His ST
lence is most extraordinary and peculiar
circumstance
He referred to the statements of John
Armstrong. and said DIR. Garrison, and
Mr. Kryter and Mr.. Dunlevy had said he
was not where he said he was, and as DR..
| Garrison did not know Mr.. Armstrong,
he would not have been likely to tell his
sorry to total stranger. The State To-
Gated Mr. Armstrong, and then brought in
witnesses to cOrrooOrate him who located
him at an entirely different point. Out of
four witnesses put on the stand by the
State, three of them confirmed the defense.
| That certainly did not contradict DR.. Gar
rison.
/ The next step was 10 take up the evil
6ence of VIM. II. Fee, as to a threat, and
after reviewing it, as told by DR. Garrison
and the witness, said the Jury had both
statements, with the addition that Mr.. Fee
belonged to one faction of a certain polit-
| ical party. and DIR. Garrison to another.
The testimony of Mr.. Fee looked improb-
able, yet he would not say Mr.. Fee had
committed perjury, he must have got
things little mixed, and probably had
talked to some one else.
He then passed to the testimony of w. c.
Beans. regarding the term II am fixed for
him." or IN fix him. or "I'll kill him
He thought witness who was not certain
which of these expressions were used could
I .s...x 10 .n..s tzr.@ /