The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-09-11

OdiStS. You may think that small
thing. but a sensitive nature, having to
harden its face in its young years 10
task like that is no small undertake ng-
to tell the men who very nearly nurScd
him that he was in search of evidence
to prove to his church in another State
that he is not a scoundrel. ! say thai
he was willing to undergo that lumllia-
ton for your sake, not because he felt
that before God he needed it, but as
unholy hands had been laid on holy in
terests, he was determined that the
spots left by those finger touches should
be washed off and he should be
bleached.
The supreme question concerning the
charge is, where did Judge Clark get
his original information!" He did not
know it personally, for he so stated in
your meeting of July 18th. Maxi that,
gentlemen; he was not writing what
/ he personally knew, for after having
time to consider it, having boon sum
mOned before this court to prove 1t,
he was forced to say that he had no
personal knowledge of any facts to s'ls-
tain Il charge he made. Then where
did he get it? He said that his charges
were based upon hearsay evidence
which came to him in private CONVEX
sation and private correspondence. The
defendant wishes for the high esteem
he once had for the highest Judiciary,
feeling that over and above him were
men. each of them 50 full Of justice and
fairness that whatever injustice might
he perpctrated in the lower courts. it
would be more than adjudicated end
Justly settled in this higher court. But
here a Supreme court judge comes to
say to you frankly that he published
grave charges on hearsay testimony.
SO, then. Judge Clark IS NOS the orig
inal accuser. and, | have it i'll my mind
to say, | believe it is the honest truth,
that Judge Clark has been most falsely
dealt with by some common gossip i'll
whom he thought he hl1 right to
have confidence. You can't make the de-
PENDANT believe, You n'Icr will do it,
though Judge Clark himself testify TO
it, he will never believe that Judge
Clark. born and raised in the home
from which he comes. cultured as he
is, with the high social environments
of his life. would have made Il charge
like that without believing thtt he had
Just grounds upon which to make if.
/ He would have v2'ated the laws Of
! common testimony which would not be
| violated to-day in n negro magistrates
| court, though an OpOSSum dog be the only
| property at issue.
Now the question stands, and it is
! still an unanswered question, who is
! the original maligner? We regret very
much that Judge Clark did not 90 on
! the stand and tell you who he is. Judge
/ Clark's duties to himself demanded that
/ he should do it. Fairness to you de-
manded that the prosecution should
! have brought out that man; for to
| hide a crime is to become particepS
| crimnis, and there is today somewhere
! in this land maigner turned loose with
| a dagger in his hand to stab the de-
! PENDANT in the dark, and from all sides,
and yet the defendant not even given
I a warning by which he may watch for
| his dastardly work Where is he, gen-
tlemen? Hear me, and if you forget
| everything else, remember this, Char
acter and a good name are too cheap in
the South to-day" What encour ige~
! ment has a man to toll and suffer and
| deny himself, if all his self-denial and
his struggle against temptation. his char
acter is to be traduced by hidden ma
! ligner?
Two men were examined in South
Carolina by deputy of the prosecution,
| and they did not know how they cams
| to be witnesses in this case. They had
! not spoken with Judge Clark; they had
no correspondence with Judge Clark, and
! they were surprised that they were in
any manner involved in this matter. So
! those two men were not the original in
! formants. 1t took Judge Clark till All
gust 18th or 18th to furnish even the
names of these witnesses. Mark that,
! gentlemen. Here is the defendants sum
mons before me, dated August 1lth,
that is, just twenty-fOur days from the
| time you had your July meeting III
which, according to your minutes, Judge
| Clark was ordered by this court to give
! the defendant at once the names of his
witnesses and twenty-four days follow
! ing, he got the names of these South
! Carolina witnesses; and those who Wen
on the stand say. I'VE know nothing
| about Judge Clark nor how we came
! to be witnesses" Then. gentlemen.
J say none of these men is the original
/ maligner.
Then where did Judge Clark get the
information concerning ]. G. Kilgo's
I South Carolina reputation? Why did
he not tell you? Certainly you cannot
think he was afraid to tell you? Is he
ashamed of his man? Is the man of
such low type of character that Judge
Clark is afraid to let you know who he
is? Would there be more disgrace in
publishing his companion in these charges
than there would be in suffering what
may come from them?
You recall, gentlemen, that in the de-
! PENDANTS first correspondence with
Judge Clark. the Judge demanded that
President Kilgo give him the inform
ant. The defendant did so at once. Bur.
gentlemen, if you will take in the whole
situation and connect it with the testi-
mony of Mr.. Gattis you will likely find
the original slanderer. Here are the
facts: Mr.. Gattis said that he was put on
the stand against his will; that he did
not wish to come here; that he was press
ed to come: that he had rather give one
hundred dollars and be out of it. That
is Il very high price for him. That means
that an ordinary man would have given
a very large amount for Il like cOmmo-
dity. Behind pious smile, a religious
walk, and a solemn twitch of the coat
tail. many men carry a spirit unworthy
of them. He has been occasionally to
Sou+I, Ctorolin1 and avidaDfIy- ,roCc;Do1