The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-11

to an argument of the kind delivered Dy
Mr.. Gaddis, consisting of whole sale
vituperation of witnesses and unsup-
ported personal belief. 1t cannot De
called argument. II was more the echo OF
street talk heard during the trial. he
says there Is no testimony. | do not MINK
l have spoken in vain to your Honor To-
| day. Why should we not believe oner-
burn? He said in his opinion that the
witness was untruthful. In celebrated
trial counsel was impeached at the par lot
expressing his personal opinion In an
argument to the jury. Neither Mr.. CAD
dis nor Mr.. Hart have dared TO talk upon
the facts of the case. 1t seemed TO be the
idea of the defense that they could laugh
down the testimony given here We Dave
not said there were only seven men at tnal
| job. We have accounted for thirteen men
beyond a doubt. Those men on foot had
waited at the trestls for the Others to come
along. Yet Mr.. Gaddis made the bold
! statement that there is o testimony, ana
that witnesses were not subpenaed. mere
has not a witness come here without
! subpoena. ! can fOresee something OF WhaI
| Mr.. Hart will have TO say concerning lhls
case. In his argument on the WILLOWS
| telegram he asked, Where is the evidence
| of any unlawful conspiracy between knox
| and Worden?' Hart attacks every body
the Government, the militia, the Attorney
General-and he says that the Attorney
General was the first one to make 1t neces-
sary to have Pullman car to take two
| cent stamp across the country. Mr.. Hart
| has got to talk about something. He has
been bowling about Lesher, but there Is
| no testimony that Lesher vas offered one
cent. He was weak-minded, and his state
ment that he expected reward was suffl-
cient to cause the prosecution to withdraw
him.
Speaking OF the A. r. y. Mr.. Cook said:
eve do not claim that the A. r. q. is IN
lawful 1t has a lawful purpose. If. how
ever, certain mem bers of that organization
get together to do unlawful acts. all con-
nected with that circle within a circle are
equally guilty. We claim to have shown
that Knox, Worden, Mullin, Hatch and
Compton combined together to do unlaw-
full acts beyond this organization. The
cry that the proceedings against these men
is against the A. K. U. as whole is bug
bear OF the Imagination of counsel for the
defense"
Mr.. Cook concluded by saying that he
had taken no more time than he thought
necessary in so important case. He
dropped into the pathetic in referring to
Knox's family, but said that while he felt
the most sincere pity for them, yet 1t
would not do to forget Sam Clark's mother.
cit is impossible for your Honor not to
see in this evidence a probable cause,
said Mr.. Cook as he sat down.
''Is the prosecution all through?" asked
General Hart, sarcastically, as he arose to
discuss the case. Your Honor" he went
on, 1.-The elaboration of the counsel has
rendered it impossible for me to enter into
as elaborate an argument as the other
side between this and adjournment, even
if wanted to. This is an extraordinary
case. Presum ptively, this is a case in
which the people OF California, in support
of the law and its integrity. In the interest
of civil government, has selected five
or six defendants and prosecuted them
for a violation of some law involving
the commission of some crime. But when
we look around us we find that it is not
purely prosecution of the people; that
the purposes of this prosecution are not
purely and only for the purpose of main
tanning the law; that the motives actual
ing the prosecution are not entirely in the
interest of the public, and that these de-
PENDANTS have been selected by some in
fiuence existing in the State as persons
who are to be made the subjects of some
kind of punishment. This fact is evil
deneed when we remember that a motion
which is now being made is resisted. not
by any selected representative of the peo-
pies in terests, not by any person who has
been elected simply and only to see that
the law will be maintained, but that it is
resisted by one of five or six lawyers not
in the employment of the Government or
the people, but representatives. of some in
terest other than that of the public, and
who must be here employed by some
power that has some private motive or in
terest to subserve. and we insist that that
power. as we learn it, is a corporation
powerful in itself. which by its own
declaration in public and private never
permits one who contests its power to go
unpun ed. Let me ask in this connec-
lion whether it is true that any man that
was active in this strike cannot frem this
time on gain supp ort for his family? Is ii
true that IN California there is
any power by whose edict those op-
posed to lis interests shall not be employed?
What would you think of an individual
who had the effrontery to publish that
no man that was lot in his interests should
ever be employed if within his power to
prevent it? The sympathy which the
learned counsel on the other side ex-
pressed for Mrs. Knox and Hatch's
parents comes to me with bad grace
when believe and have a right to believe
that these men have received the anathema
that they stand under the ban of power
full corporation that has said In the face of
the people of California that they shall
not be p ermitted TO pursue an honest avo-
cation again. IL the man that utters that
sentiment considers these men to be crimi-
mails what will the hon est people of Cali
fornia with the public utterances of that
kind think of the individual who made
themp No man who has been prominent
in this strike shall hereafter receive en-
ployment in California If we can help it,
That's what they say. Take that doctrine
and ask yourself whether the power that
backs this prosecution is one that ought or
ought n ct to be 'suspconed' when it comes
that decree has been made. We have the
right TO examine the powers that are sup
porting the other side, and we have the
right 10 consider the testimony that is
| brought into this court in view of the pow-
ers that may create it. Is it true In Cali
| for ho fad Co.