The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-15
A DAY OF ARGUMENT
ATTORNEYS IN SMITH CASE con-
SUME THE DAY IN TALKING.
Two Speeches for the Defense and
One for the Pro%secutfon-A Night
Session.

part of the morning. John S. Dun
can closed the prisoners case last
night. Attorney Spaan spoke for
the defense yesterday morning and was
followed in the afternoon by Congressman
Henry. The crowd, yesterday, was as large
and feverish and impatient as on any of
the preceding days. There were few people
in the court room last night, because it
was not given out publicly that a night ses-
sion would be held. Yesterday afternoon,
when Mr.. Henry, for the State, arose to
speak, Mrs. Wands, the mother of the
prisoner, was not in her accustomed chair.
She came in, however, at the close of the
gunner and remained until the hour of
adjournment. Since the case began many
people have remarked the fact that the
State did not introduce some of the
past escapades of the prisoner.
Nothing of his private life has
been brought out save that he
was a man of bad moral character. The
attorneys for the prosecution say hat if
the rule of law had permitted. they might
have shown Smith UP as a man of brutal
instinct. This, however, was not gone into
because of a sharp move on the part of the
defense. BY RETAINING from anything in
the nature of a cross-examination as to the
prisoners moral character they deprived
the State of the opportunity of introducing
testimony setting up specific acts on the
part of the prisoner.
1t is also said that the prosecution, if it
had been desired, would have been able to
produce a witness from Anderson who
would have testified to a previous tcquaint-
ance between Smith and the murdered man.
1t was asserted that a year ago w. b.
Thomas came to Indianapolis to attend an
entertainment given by the Elks. and was
introduced IN Smith while thara TT iS said
the men became ''chGmmy'' on short no
tice, and drank together on the occasion
of their first meeting. At $50 O'Clock yes
terday attorney Henry Spaan," with a huge
bundle of law books before him, began a
strong argument for the defense.
Gentlemen Of the jury" he began, eve
live in this country under two sets of laws.
One is laid down in the statutes and the
decisions Of the Supreme courts for the
government Of citizens, their rights and
property, and even life. We are not here
as citizens of the State to administer the
criminal law of the State as laid down by
the acts of the Legislature and the Su-
to a mans conscience; it is between him
and his Maker. The civil law, that binds
us all as members of this great Common
wealth, Is to be administered by the court,
and 1T Is by that law that mems lives and
liberties are measured, and by no other.
We may ave some preeonceiyed ideas OF
like this. Some of US may believe that the
slightest infraction of moral law should be
visited by condign punishment. Now. We
have not entered into a moral court to try
this case. No priest or teacher of the
here. This is a court where any citizen Of
the State may come without fear. IT. is
not to enforce the moral law that you
are here to-day; but you come here to en-
force the laws of the State of Indiana and
nothing else. 1t is by virtue of that law
that we live under the blessings of the
nineteenth century DO Won know that
our ancestors, from whom we are proud to
claim descent, at one time when two cit
merits of the case by fire? The man who
thought he was right put his hand into
burned S pSs D he o %as riE Ta.ef' If II his " ha MaS W nes
burned he was wrong: Out OF that system
we have grown, we have advanced. Now
that must decide. Under the wisdom Of
our law it has been said that twelve men
shah be the arbiters of the fate of the man
accused. Now, your attention has already
been called to this law. The defense in
this case is that Smith killed Thomas in
other part of the case, because / believe
in my heart that we have made a complete
case of self-defense. and that there can be
but one conclusion.
Attorney Spaan read from the case of
Bryant against the State, 1o6th Ind., set
ting out the theory of self-defense. Con
Where a mans life is in danger. or
Na ere from the action OF the assailant,
DOe'S hoiih
the right to defend himself may be exer-
cised by him, and he may use it to any
years ago there was a divine parsonage
who walked among men. He laid down a
different law. He said if a man should
smite you on one cheek you should turn
the other to him also. But, gentlemen
Of the jury, that is not the law governing
the right of self-defense in Indiana. What
the greater Master said in Gallilee. eight
cen hundred years ago, was to govern the
whom the words IF tho hloCCpd NTacfor will
be true, but we have not yet arrived at
that ideal condition. We are simply ad-
humanity as it finds it with its passions
and education and lack Of such. Let us
analyze this law of self-defense as laid
down by the courts of Indiana. In the first
place. the person assaulted has the right
to self-defense. Here is a c-ontravention of
the idea that a man should turn the other
cheek. We, with the old Saxon blood surg
ing in our veins. have a right to resent an
insult. We have not yet arrived at the
idea that we must turn the other cheek
also. This statute means just what it
says, and words to amplify or explain it
are simply lost. A man does not have to
wait until he sees that the other is about
to kill him before acting for himself. He
stands upon the dignity of the State of
Indiana, and when a man SlapS him in the
face he has a right to slap back. He can
resist force with force, and has a right to
He does not have to believe that he is to
be killed. 1t simply amounts to this: that
IL a man is attacked. as our client was,
- 49, ~ ~ W ioiSNy oiIu
if by. mischance. or even purposely, he
kills his assailant. he is justified by the
law laid down by the Supreme Court of
Indiana.
WHAT CONSTITUTES SELF-DEFENSE.
1T a man be met upon the street by a
stranger, and that stranger catches him by
the throat. he is in a place where he has
a right to be, and the right of self-defense
comes to him at once. The burglar may
be shot down like a dog or knitted to the
heart when in the act of robbing the
house. but the owner is not guilty of MUIR
der. 1t is not necessary, upon an inves-
tigation of a killing, to show the danger
was actual. 1t is sufficient to show it was
apparent. If a man is killed when it is
not really necessary. but where the danger
to the other was imminent, the law justi-
fieS the killing. When our client was
grappled by the throat by this man he
was not bound to say. Now. Thomas. are
you in earnest in this fight?' No. While
choked to death. The necessities of a stu
from the standpoint of a juror. sitting UNI
the circumstances under which our client
acted at the time. It's like a soldier going
to battle. He simply fights because the
situation demands it. Suppose the soldiers
in the ranks had hesitated every time they
were ordered TO charge the b~reastworks
of the enemy. how many battles would
have been won by the Union? I have read