The Big Stone post. (Big Stone Gap, Va.) 1890-1892, 1891-09-11

,,rr I.anCuashcs '' "a"
lts sss So, n,.th. while Public Sen'i-
S ssss r.nidIy Changes in His fas'f,
ssas8s ',,,,,cnts In the Case Pubiishe"
Sasssi ,...', 1,imc.-naker's Brothers
tseRS''' ,,,,ove In His Innocence, ana
ss emilio statement.
. rbos. II. Mason, formerly eu''o' o.
& ,r1ou vireinian, was in the city
In talking with PosT repor-
Psss uo now celebrated Eakcr-Gil-
s. o. Mr. Mason said
+. Il great change OF pubic
r. and about Abingdon, in favor
I 49, The intelligent body OF The
ss,Ie are just beginning to realize '"a'
CO. wrong has been done, III Inc con-
49, of an innocent man. at least
AGAINST whom there is no subsiai'-
sE1 ;doncc to lead to n conviction
asen those who were loudest III 'hc''
5s5s. .,;ans against Dr. Baker, never
49, 49, ,,octcd such Il contingcncy as
s'ssg ;,,;oo of ihc accused, and most
ssfb csr dcnunciations were directed
ra,;rr as an aduliercr, and not as
~ ,lerer. and as it is believed that 'hc
s ' onj,,ion against Baker produced
rourse on the part of many OF
-, rcoplc of the county, had IT'S m
is & onrc,iur fhe verdict, these
s ss are beginning to regret their ac~
;i, ,sS md to recognize that the conviction
ISsss outrage on Justice. y -,
10 I,y was the trial not held sooner!
.Iobn C. Summers, who made that
iass- thirsty speech at the trial, had the
ss of from term to term. Twice,
maJ believe three times, the prisoner
s s, uded trial at regular terms OF the
g5sSi = court. Each time he was refused
JsE and on application for bail TINS also
as, o,used As an example of the lilmsy
se s is mon Which the Commonwealth :
ssgincy obtained continuances, may nc
Ieai toned The instance that once al least:
s,y,l twice, continuance was had on the
IN nd oI llc absence of witness, who
lesl she appeared at The trial, the Com
.at,v calth tried TO prove the witness UNI
Rliahlc Col. Summers was Common
sal ms Attorney at the time the charges
e,,e brought. His term of office expired
bsauly I,t. The prosecuting attorney
seAiycs a fee Of $40 for every conviction.
k.shc expiration of Col! Summers term,
ga retained hy Mr.. Gilmer, and re-
~ It fee, it is said Of 5000. Judge +.
sfIuiton. cx-aSs;Stant district attorney
iseceGcd Col. Summers rs Common
su tbs Attorney, and the trial was held
D9thc first term of the court after he as
hi, i that Office Judge Hutton is one
ill., ablcst Young lawyers of this sec
oa and conducted the trial, so far as he
aS concerned ON Il very high plane.
is common rumor about AbinS-
al and one generally believed, that so
tad icIiyc was the prosecution by Sum
isfs that when, as Commonwcallh's At
bsli cy. after The charges were brought he
R31l to the house of Mrs. Gilmer,
efouad there two letters under the par
nc arpet from Dr. Baker to Mrs Gimcr,
nd that lac DESTROYED, or caused these
sfser> to hc destroyed When charged
I'LL lhi> afterwards Summers claimed
kai I,cucvcr found any letters, but had
sus ed tue rumors OF the finding of the
aftt rs t. be circulated in order tc make
&C. believe that he had letters of his
nbs possession, and thus keep Baker
a. IA,
va behalf
B@l he brothers of Mrs Baker, believing
rmy in the innocence of Dr. Baker
Eal gcd with tie murder OF their lavorte
istr, have stood hy the accused, and
as been his warm supporters and SYM
eflizcr> through the whole time. This
ma iny miud strong moral evidence Of
hE innocence of the condemned man,
la hclcvc tue whole prosecution has
sel thc result OF It conspiracy on the
aEt of a Scorncd woman and her husband
pssa rcal vengeance on the head of the
pm whose rejected paramour the wife
Predecessor JaweS A. Davis, and his two
ln' hers, McssIS. Chas. W. and j. 81 Da-
IS, have written the following public
tsi cmcnt to the Abingdon Virginan
Many sensational articles appeared in
e newspapers during the trial which
|Wc calculated, if not really intended, to
sss The public mind against the accused,
Ie The verdict rendered by the jury had
'cel' reached the ears of the prisoner
Go IT Was boldly announced through
ae same papers that the verdict accorded
~ the views OF the great majority of
rs peopie, and now after the unhappy
sal' has fallen, beneath the blows of the
FeSecu4on there are those who would
MI hun again and again.
ny Is this being done? The question
gwen raised why the Davis brothers did
M ON the prosecution in a clamor for
By III, at the accused to avengc the
81 IA OF their sister! 1t is due to our
NeS' to the prisoner and to the public
sN We state some OF the reasons for the
81 We pursued. There was nothing
sa"'.est III the previous life of the ac-
Rsco that showed him capable of COM
g 'nS c"me hence by law, both human
Y N''ine' we were required at least to
sn'a!H silent and consider him innocent
8 ~ ''N investigation he might he proven
NY mat inrcStisation has been made
!" Il GcsFee OF rigor that denied the ac-
FL the dcncdt of existing doubts, aud
'he evidence, which we have carefully
ed'ed' has lailod to prove that Baker
'So"ed his wife; the impression still re-
mug 'hat our sister may have died
yn natural causes.
%our intimate connection with the
r. t'In''y gave usan insight into their