Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-27

no danger, ne snail go Tree.
"And further on we find him talking
to Mr.. Beans. Has Mr.. Beans any rea-
son to come here to try to swear the lie
of DR.. George |. Garrison away? Rather,
on the contrary, does the evidence not
show that he was a trusted friend OF
DR.. Garrison's? To whom did he ex-
hibit that letter and reverting to his ami
mostly to DR.. Baird, say III fix him. or
I'm fixed for him, or III kill him? If
such things had not happened after
forwards we might not think now
of who it was he fixed. AT
that moment he was fixed, and whom,
afterwards, did he fix? Who afterwards
did he kill? There is but one man
under the canopy of Heaven whom he
could have meant, and that man is DR..
Baird, who has now been in his grave
for two long months. Isn't it true? L
am fixed for him. Din't he say on that
stand that he carried the pistol, and
and tell how he had arranged his gloves,
and how he did on that fatal morning,
and how he killed him? Didn't he an
nounce to Mr.. Beans, I'm fixed for
him. or I'll fix him, or I'll kill him"
And he did all three.
"Then we have Mr.. Fee. In Ged's
name what has he to do with taking
DR.. Garrson's life. Wouldn't he feel
like prevaricating on the other side, If
he was to prevaricate at all? But be-
fore | go to Mr.. Fee let's go back TO
Mr.. Beans Hadn't there been de-
Tense of the crime in the gas Office.
Didn't Garrison add to What others had
said. And when Mr.. Beans was on that
stand, wasn't he asked over and over
again in an attempt TO make it appear
that ne believed it was he who was TO
be fixed upon, and did he not answer
that DR.. Garrison hadn't qualified it
that he was fixed for him'-and when
Mr.. Beans went on that stand, and with
uplifted hand and with the clear con-
science that believe he possesses, said
it was not in any such way-that there
was no ifs or ands about it-he told the
truth. 1t was prefixed with no excuse,
except that he would call him those
things-as Mr.. Fee said-once too often.
st was so with Mr.. Fee. He was
asked if 1t was not so-an-so, and he said
no. and then the defendant went on the
stand and said that Mr. Beans had
sworn on the Holy Evangel to that
which was not so. Mr.. Beans swore
that it was so, that he said he would
fix him, or that he was fixed for him.
or that he would kill him. and he tells
you without hesitation that there was
no proviso, but simply the statement
about DR.. Baird and the names he had
been called down on Market street.
$50 with Mr.. Fee. He tells you the
defendant was breathing out hostility.
He did so to Mr.. Beans and later to Mr..
Fee, and he expressed TO neither any
fear. 1t was simply a declaration of
hostiltes because DR.. Baird had called
him name, 'and he will call me that
name once too often, and that is exact
ly what did happen. Mr.. Fee says his
recollection Of 1t was, the d-n old fool
will call me that once too often, but
when he is charged with the crime and
called to answer for his acts, and put
on trial before jury OF his country
men, he adds to Mr. Beans statement a
proviso and the same to Mr.. Fees, and
he adds to MraBeans' that the remark
which called forth the dec
laration was a remark made on
Market street, and then on the
stand goes Mr.. Hadich, and he says he
was fixed and that there was an at
tempt to fix him. and that must have
been the time of which he related to Mr.
Beans. Whe. DR.. Baird passed and
called him that name, he dropped the
reins and snatched for his revolver, but
Dr. Baird was gone, and Mr.. Hadlich
made an involuntary movement. What
caused him to do it? Would he have
done it If DR.. Garrison had not snatched
for his pocket? And why did he snatch
for his pistol? Did DR.. Baird make a
threatening movement? Is there man
but who believes that if DR.. Baird had
stopped and he had said take that back
and he had refused to take it back be
would not have shot him theh and
there? l think not"
The speaker then went back to the
proposition that the defendant was
guilty of premeditated murder, over
which he had pondered by day and by
night, and to prove it he went over all
the circumstances tending in that direc
ton. From these he passed to the wit
nesses of the actual shooting, who had
been summoned in behalf Of the State,
and beginning with Leonard Gerkstet-
ter, he took them up one by one, nara
ting their testimony clearly and con-
csely with the aid of the stenographic
report He spread upon the floor copy
of the plat Of the street, and with the
evidence in one hand and his cane for
pointer in the other, he went over the
statement of each in turn pointing out TO
the members Of the jury where each
had stood, and relating what each had
said. His elucidation of the story OF
the crime was not only clear but dra-
matte, and spectators and jury alike in
leaned forward as the speak
er, warmed up by his earnestness,
grew eloquent and questioned, his voice
rising and falling as he made his COM
ments and drew his conclusions. He
insisted that Leonard Gerkstetter and
Minnie Marshall and all the rest of the
States witnesses had not only not been
but that they were unim-
peachable, and his argument was OF the
most forcible description. Once he
said:
Can you doubt this story? Do you
have to see it again to believe? Are
there Thomases on this jury, who have
to put their fingers into the gaping
wounds of that old man before they will
believe how he died? Why, how clear
this is? 1t is almost as though the uni