Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-03-15

you would have had repetition after repe-
tition rom ,,i other Ieadfng men Of that
to establish that prcposition, pray. rem
| tlemer. tell me how many fifneG even
should be brought? What were the ques-
lions a that were put 70 those seven men7
general reputation Of George Il. WcNsIv
| was. before the publication of there NJ
| ticles. as man Of moral worth? or. d
character OF George r. McNaliY n ~
! town of Clinton. or to put Il IN other
! words did this man have good name n
his own town? did he have the repGtar
his own town? Row mind you. sentIe.
men. those men came here not to testify
10 their personal opinion. for the per-
scnal opinions OF but seven men from the
town. OF Clinton would be nothing com
pared with the general reputation he has
amongst the hundreds that make UP thu
whole population. The law does not per-
NIT us to prove 1t In that way might
be put upon the stand to testify to q
mans general reputation. My private
opinion might be that his character was
coed. and yet II the community said It
was bad. I should be called there to tes-
tify. to the opinion of the community.
not to my own. and however hard II
night be. holding the private opinion that
TN community was wrong. still II would
be my duty to testify to the fact that the
community adjudged his character to be
bad Well. gentlemen. as the cross OK
animation and the statements Of some Of
them showed. every one OF those wit
nesses. reluctant as they were to testify
mark: II am not testifying to my prf-
yate opinion" Every one OF those in
teliiCcnt gentlemen understood in all its
technical bearings exactly the question
that was put. Every one of those testi-
fed intelligently. first that they did know
what his general reputation for character
was In the town Of Clinton. Every one
OF those witnesses testified that the conn
munity In which he lived had given to
him bad name before these articles
were published. at the time when no
says that he was hurt.-that Mt thai time
Clinton where he was born and raised
and where he has passed his life, was
bad.
Now who are they? Not picked up
tile to him. Not one Of them that ever.
mad any trouble with him, although there
was an attempt to bring out from John
Jewell the fact that Mentally last fall
didn't support him for high sheriff But
Jewell was as fair and as candid and as
reluctant to give that testimony as tho
other SIX men. But suppose for the sake
OF giving the plaintiff the full benefit OF
TINS. you discard Jewell, and we will rest
II upon the six. Now who are they? Are
they men without intelligence, without
character in that community? Or do
they represent the best thought. the best
ard intelligence and all shades Of politics
from the town Of Clinton? 1t was such
an array. OF testimony that 1t is >impos-
sipIe py mint. by insinuation. by SUCCESS
ton or by appeals to prejudice for my
distinguished friend. with his long years
q experience. even to hint to you ttYat
there could have been the bitterness of
politics or rivalry in trade or jealousies
OF the remotest nature to affect the hon
est candcr or integrity of single one of
those witnesses. II hope some of you
know those witnesses. hope that you
know John p. Billings who. I have a
right to say from his appearance upon
the stand, If you don't know him, is the
soul OF honor. / hope you know f. G.
infesrfy e tSf aafes
hope YOU know food old Alton Richard
son. You could Judge by his appearance
what his standing must be in that conn
munity where he has lived long and
honorable life. / hope. gentlemen. that
you noticed the tren0r in his voice when
he the next door rleighbor to George Nc
Naliy. with the responsibilities of wit.
ness upon his conscience. reluctantly, and
painfufy to him. was compelled by the
power of our subpoena to come here and
testify to the truth about this mans
n T,c,, &c And the other witnesses arc
taxing UP your time to enumerate them
Discard Mr.. Jewell to give the plaintiff
the benefit Of every doubt. and 1 say they
are six men that cannot be matched in
the town of Clinton for faipness. for in-
telligencc and for knowledge Of what the
people would be likely to say about q
man.. 80
Well. gentlemen, general reputation
for character means q great deal 1t IS
not made up of what a mans enemies
say of him. The public discount those
things. 1t is not made up Of the scandals
that are born of political and business
1ealoustes. The public discount Them It
IS not the r,,mor Of every scandal or slam
der that is born in prejudice. Your char
in the minds Of your ncighbors, and that
l nave we win. whether 1t be good or
BAD, by the thousand little things that
we 40 year In and year out. / tell you.
gentlemen. that the public usually rates
man for just what he is worth. We
are sometimes misjudged. We sometimes
have to bear adverse criticism when per-
maps We are right and the public wrong.
eied up and the great doctrine of the sur
viyal of the fittest. If it applies anywhere.
IS manifestly true in the upholding of
man of character and of reputation, he
that mas good character and is of good
repute among his neishbors. has won IL
by years of patient well-doing and self
denial. He that has put upon him the
%, OF bearing through life name of
III repute and OF bad moral character has
deserved 1t by years OF wrong doing
Gentlemen. II means good deal. 1t
means good dealto ans. man 70 have the
representative citizens Of HTS town come
into Il court and there say that he is a
man OF bad moral character ana is SO
generally reputed amongst his neighbors.
The people of Clinton. before these ar
ticles We're published. generally said that
George Mentally, by his life, had put upon
himself the opprobrium of being q man Of
bad moral character.
Was the evidence fair? There Is no
doubt about 1t. Was the evidence UNI
prc1udiced? My brother cannot attack
1t. Did 1t come from his enemies? Every
one of them his personal friend. Did 1t
come from men who had been hostile to
him? Not one of them. save the far
fetched piece of testimony relating to
Jewell. Was 1t given intelligently? And .
to that my distinguished friends used the
style of cross examination so often used
In that inquiry to throw dust in the minds
OF the jury, that 0ft-rcpeated question
which always seems amusing to lawyers
who hear 1t for hundredth or thou
sandth time. yet is always fresh to q
new jury who have never sat upon such
q case-"Who have you heard say so?
Can you name a MANI" Well Mr.. Fore
man. can see men upon this Jury Of
whom. II were called upon the stand to
testify to their moral character or their
reputation for truth, should unhcsita-
ttngly say that l knew 1t to be good.
Yet never heard a man say so. I know
Of many man In this community and
you do in yours, who to their sorrow have
built up a reputation of having a bad
moral character. yet not human being
m mir xs,y.r hal