The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-05
ALL IT'S EVIDENCE In
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN
THE DEBS CASE RESTS.
Defendants Attorneys at Once Move
the Discharge of the Accused
Decision to BE Made To-Day.

CHICAGO. Feb 4-Unexpectedly. this
announced that it had submitted all of it's
evidence in the conspiracy case before Judge
| Grosscup. Saturday the prosecution issued
forty-five more subpoenas for witnesses,
and the return of these expected to
keep the government on the stand the re-
mainder of the week.
When Mr.. Walker announced, at clock,
that the prosecution would rest it's case
there was some surprise in the court room.
The jury was requested to retire. and coun-
sci for the defense asked for the dismissal
of the defendants. Judge Thoman, for John
f. McVean, of Cleveland O., member of
the board of directors, asked that his client
be discharged; that during the trial his
name yas not coupled with any of the 9TH
ers, save as being feliow-director. There
was no proof that he had been in Chicago
during the strike. He had never been in any
of the counsels of the board of directors
during the strike period.
Mr.. Walker, for the government, admit
ted the representation but called the atten-
tion Of the court to the fact that McVean
had voted in the convention to order a
strike and had acted as member of one
of the committees.
Mr.. Darrow asked for the peremptory
uiScudTSe OIL FRANK Dyer, Dennis Larkln,
James Mcdonald and John Burke not one
of whom had been named as taking part in
single overt act He asked for the dis
charge of John ]. Hannahan, against whom,
he said, the government had failed to prove
an overt act. He then argued for the dis
cnarge of the members of the board of di-
rectors. Not a single act set forth in the
indictment, he claimed, had been proven
against them. There had not been the slight
est connection made between them and the
other defendants accused of
The Court said he would take the mo-
tfonS under advisement and make his de-
clsion lssl in the morning. instructing the
court room until after he had disposed
of the motions.
Attorney Geeting. who was refused the
because of a rule of the court confining the
cross-examination TO but one counsel for
by the introduction of the two men whom
he was denied the right to examine and
Informed by the Court that he could now
nation of his denial of last week. said
he did so in order to expedite business
He recognized that the attorney had been
now wished to oblige him. However, the
dsolr court ,n did not not Wish to be understood
that the attorney had any constitutional
right to croSS-examine where counsel for
other 2, oeIendants having common interest
nesses- Mr. Geeting, in replying to the
Court; thanked him for the privilege ar
forded, but did not announce the with
drawal of his exceptions taken at the
time.
During the afternoon United States
Marshal Arnold also identified defendant
as the leader of the crowd that ridiculed
him and cursed the Injunction, the courts
and the government.
The failure to secure in time all the wit
nesses for whom subpoenas were issued on
SATURDAY. night was the cause of the sud-
den closing OF the governments side of the
trial.