St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-11-23
CpitchloW Gives His TeSti-
mony, but Is Not Cross
Examined.
Erwin Claims the Detectives
We're Invaders and De-
served Their Fate.
Confidently Believed That the
Verdict Will Be One Of
Aequittal.
Carnegie Reduces Wages in
the Mill at Beaver
Falls.

PrrTsBURe, Nov. q, The testimony
in the Critchlow case was continued to-
day. 1t is expected that the case will
go to the jury tomorrow afternoon. The
defense closed today and the prosecu-
ton began it's rebuttal. The defendant
was first called to the stand.
Ibid you fire fire-Tn of any kind
between 7:30 ana $3.50 a. M, July 6, this
year?'
mo, sir"
"Were you on the company grounds
between those hourST
mo, sir"
"Did you fire any firearms between
! 10:30 and IL m., or were you on the co IL
pany ground?"
mo, Sir.''
"Did you fire gun or arm of any
kind between / 80 and D. m, and were
you on the company ground between
| these hours?"
mo, SIR"
He was not crOSS:eXamlned. Mrs
| Critchlow testified that on July 6-She
| reached her home at p. m. and found
her husband asleep. The defense
| rested here. The prosecution called
several witnesses in rebuttal, whose
| testimony was unimportant.
The Law Arguments
| we're then commenced. The points of
| law submitted were those usual in muir
| der cases. One of these advanced by
| the defense was that where two or more
! persons are charged with committing a
| crime, and it is uncertain which, all
| must be acquitted.
| At p. m. Attorney John S. RObb be-
| gan his address to the jury.
| w. w. Erwin, of st. Paul, preceded
! his address to the jury by thanking the
! court for the fair and impartial manner
| in which the case had been tried. He
! said that the jury could not presume
| that there was any strike at Homestead :
| it was not in evidence; there was no
| proof that there was any dissension.
| There was no evidence that Frick, who
sends armed invaders to the shore OF
/ Homestead, had any property there.
/ There was no evidence that the men.
| women and children were there for un-
! lawful purposes, but the commonwealth
said they must infer.
| Es'Infer? A way to wink when logic
| could not speak. All the jury knew was
| that there were armed foreign invaders
| there. There was no evidence that
| those men were hired as watchmen
not the slightest evidence, and they had
| No Right to Assume
| they were watehmen. The absence of
| proof gives rise to the presumption
| invaded by armed foreign men-armed
by Quartermaster Frick. Why he
did not know, but presumed
| the purpose was so damnable
| that Frick would not dare to tell it be-
| fore the open forum of the court. Was
the battle at Homestead a riot. or was
| it an unwarranted invasion? II the
latter, that's the end of it, for the peo
| pie never delegated to another the right
| to repei invasion"
| Continuing, he said: "Unless- the
| right of the Pinkertons to be there was
made plain, the people should have shot
| them down. should have shot them after
leaving the barges should have fol-
lowed them to their hearthstones and
shot them down there. should have shot
| them at Gods own altar, and if possible
| to follow them across the great bound
ary, should have followed them
| across the graves and. shot them down
as they lay on the bosom of the prince
| of hell. But, in case you do not agree
with me that the force was an illegal
armed invasion, was there any organ
! lied resistance to the landing? Not a
bit of evidence was introduced to show
| it. There was cry Of 'Scabs; you can't
| and There were no scabs there. No
assistance to legally authorized watch
men. The people were there
Not for Riot"
Continuing, he said the testimony was
| given by detectives-by that human
hyena, the hunter of men, who will not
! do Gods work-earn his bread by the
! sweat of his brow. Those detectives
are indicted, and so measure how far
| they will stretch the truth to prevent
your jury from stretching their necks.
| The first shot came from the boat
aimed at what? Strikers2 No. Men,