The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-10


Il will not read my authorisss tilt Mr..
Alien has read his.n
court.
:. About onso hour" answered w.
Thompson. 90
The court excused the jury for an hour
ana she learned gentlemeR argued and
quoted volume after volume on the points
az issue. much Of which was net intelligi-
pie 10 those who are not doctors of laws.
When the jury reassembled Mr. Thomp-
son 0egan his argument for the Defense &c
was very able argument. and III it he
held, as he has ali through tbs triaL that
the guilt Of Lugrin must De proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and claimed that the
state had failed in this particular. The
evidence in the case against Lugrln was
entirely circumstantial. There was no
direct evidence whatever that Mr. Lugrin
mad written or composed the alleged libel
Gus article. He reviesed the testimony,
wnicn, he said. proved that several other
editors wrote some OF the articles putin
evidence. he scored the attorneys for the
state for casting aspersions on the testi-9
mony OF those summoned from the TeIe-
graph Office simply because they had not
proved their case. There was no evidence
that LugFin ever wrote anything for the
paper, except that by Costello, who swore
that he saw him writing &C a table one
day, but he did not know what he was
writing about. Yet" he exclaimed sthe
state wsuld make you believe that Lugrin
has been proven guilty beyond a reason
able doubt" He held that the guilt must
| be fixed on the man who wrote the article
before q conviction could be secured.
He held that neither the defense nor the
| state wanted to show Bolton Rogers up.
He held that it was unworthy for Rogers
| 10 appeal to the criminal law for redress.
| He should have appealed to the civil Law.
By the former method the state pays all
| the bills whether Lugrin is convicted or
not. 20
| The state put Rogers on the stand. but
the attorneys for the prosecution did not
| ask him If he was guilty of the things
charged by the Telegraph If they had
done this it would have compelled the de-
Tense 70 20 into this question.
Mr.. Allen then made the closing argus
ment for the defense. He complimented
| Mr.. Thompson on the skill with which he
had conJured mp technicalitiss. The de-
Tense was remarkable for the manner In
| which IL had conjured up technicalities
4 and for the way in which it had sought to
hoodwink the court as TO the law in the
| case. 1t was dreadful thing 10 fall into
the hands of the law, as Mr.. Lugrin had,
as 1t involved injury 10 character and
/ property. He held that the same mercy
/ should be shown TO the defendant when
he hbeied Rogers as he had shown to
Rogers. Counsel for the defense had the
hardihood to say that il was cowardly TO
80. L.
the alleged libel. If he had sought salts
| faction IN the civil courts the learned
council would have said that 10 was fnar-
cenary to seek golden salve for his hurts;
| that ne should have sought his satisfac-
| ton inthe criminal court. IL was a case
| Of man being damned II he did and
/ damned il he didn't. He held that the
MISSION of newspaper was to publish
/ the news and comment on the current
events Of the day, but it was not privi-
| legged to blacken private character. The
law says to the newspapers:
| aYou may exist and you may publish
| the truth. II you publish lbels however,
| you must come into court and prove that
| they are true or you will be punished for
it,"
+, Mr.. Thompson had the audacity to say
that had Rogers been questioned rs TO the
alleged libel he would have said Ii was not
true. The counsel said that the defense.
instead Of trying TO prove its case. pleaded
the baby act. They say TO Rogers:
teYour reputation and character are de.
s,royed, but you have got TO come into
court and prove me guilty before can be
punished"
Mr.. Allen continued: sI say this Is
hideous doctrine. and hold thas the de-
PENDANT muss prove that he is innocent in
this case"
Mr.. Allen then stated that the defense
had acknowledged that it had never in
tended to try TO prove the libel, and that
Ii had been agreed by Mr.. Lugrin and his
attorneys some time since that the defense
was to be purely technical one. He held
that oil the evidence went 70 show that
Lugrtn was not only the editor. but the
managing editor. Collins and Costello
and others admit this. It was published
on the editorial page that he was the man
aging editor, If Lugrin had libeled one of
the jury Mr.. Allen opined that he would
have been called to account for IL Mr..
Allen went on to says
off Lugrin is not responsible, why did
he not go on the stand and say so. He -
the best person In the world TO do that. l
do not think he should hide himself be
hind teChulcaiities. 4 nOlq Nun 70 20
equally guilty if he wrote the article, pub
lIshed il or caused 10 TO be circulated. IL
such libel had been published against
me. by the great God, the man who wrote
il would 60 hence or l would go myself.
Mr.. Thorn ps0n says the la~ protects every
one. and yet according to his idea. Rogers
has no protection against the vile attacks
made by this man.
..In conclusion, will leave MIR. Lugrln
IN your hands TO accord him such justice
As you deem best. L also leave In your
hands Mr.. Rogers reputation and the gen
eral good of the community. IL has been
held by the defense that We have not
Dshogn ID at the Telegraph IL published in
Seattle Here are the papers offered IN
evidence Each OF chem IS dated Seattle
in number of places, and think this Is
enough proof that the paper IL published
in this city"
Atthe conclusion Of Mr. Aliens address
the question of the charge 10 the jury
came up. The defense asked for written
charge. and after a short discussion II was
decided 20 let the matter SO over tiii this
morning At 9 o'clock, when the jury viii
be charged and the case given 20 them.