The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28
OUT ALL NIGHT.


under the edifioe of republican institu-
tions.
Who are the parties involved? Not Mr.,
Plummer the private oltizen but a depu-
ty sheriff; on the other side, public
newspaper, not Col. Dow, not the stock
holders. Don't let yourselves. be led
astray as to that. 1t was revelation to
me to learn that Col. Dow was q minor
factor In the paper; not its owner, but
one of seven directors. 1t was a revela-
ton to me to learn that Mr.. Norton was
the editorial head unshackled, I'M
bridled, and that not even Col. Dow was
able to dictate as to the insertion and
omission of any article. As these cold
facts, uncontradicted, appeared, I had
suspicion that some choice passages of
my brothers. eloquenoe foated away into
inDocuous desuetude. 1t was revelation
to the plaintiff, for had he known it, his
reckless career in the spring of '94, would
not have been entered upon.
Don't let any such matter as that enter
into your elaboration. Gentlemen it's
an impersonal case. lisa deputy sheriff,
without name, against newspaper with
out person. L
Mr.. Heath rev iewed the alleged llbells
GUS article. The plaintiff might object
to the word plotting" but the employ
ment of a s'spotter'' certainly implies
plotting. The plaintiff is too coarse
fibred to feel. as the average citizen does,
thai the melting of citizen to commit
crime, while not unlawful, yet approach
es very near to unfairness and indecency.
The only sentence worthy of your at
tention and mine is "who will bo the
next young man to lay himself liable to
term of years in prison by taking a
false oath by direction of this guardian
of our laws?'' n
That applies to the plaintiff, of course,
but the innuendo, deny. The plaintiff
alleges that the sentence implies subor-
nation by perjury.
IT you find that we accuse Mr.. Plum
mer of having procured the crime Of per-
jury, of course it's libellous. but if you
find that he induced some one to swear
falsely in the popular sense, not the legal
| then it is not libellous.
Mr.. Heath spoke of malice in law and
malice III fact and said that this differ
enoe. as recognized in law grew out OF
the legal confusion whereby the legal
| ancestors Of the lawyers of today sought
to confuse the common people. He trust
ed that the lawyers of today had drawn
away from that old practice Of their an
cestors of using bad English and worse
French to confuse the people. 4
He should speak of malice in plain lam
guage.
In reference to Bartlett's statement to
Dow, unoontradicted by testimony, that
he was offered 81 to go ON the stand and
| testify it was no wonder that Bartlett;
said patheticaliy that he thought they
wanted him to swear falsely.
The voluntary whispering of Plummel
and Judge Gould is a fiction.
Judge Gould on tho stand has turned
on the light. He says that he motIens d
to Plummer and asked him and then
Plummer said "He's lying" What be
comes now of mis- voluntary exposure Of
the perjury? He said it in so low tons
that neither Coombs nor SWEET nor the
four reporters heard it,
Knowing, as be admits, that SWEET
was to be discharged, knowing as he
did that he couldn't get Bartlett to testi
fy he had offered him 81, he yet submits
SWEET to the obloquy of trial.
Mr.. Heath urged the jury to bear in
mind the plaintiffs great resentment