Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1903-10-14
. TESTIMONY IN THE rlLLMAN TRIAL.
Some Reflections OF One Who Has Closely
Followed the Case Day by Day.
IW. w. Ball. in The State.

Nv. w. Ball, in The State.
With the testimony all heard in th,
case of James III. riliman it may be in
teresting to emphasize some of tn,
points that have made themselves con
spicuously plain in the proceedings.
In spite of the injection of politic.
into the trial, in spite of the dragging il
Of Senator B. II. Tillman's name, it ha,
been demonstrated sufficiently thar
many men of the former Reform or Till
mantle faction have had no more sym
pathy with the shooting of Mr.. Gonzale.
than members of the faction that he was
formerly identified with. Look at the
example of Talbird-a reformer and {
State Senator. It was to be expected
that he would tell the truth to the bes
of his ability, to the best of his recol
lection, and that is what, without doubt
he did. Adams and Bowling, too, were
T1llman's friends-close friends. The,
are among the strongest witnesses fol
the State. This is no matter for sur
prise. Politics does not affect the
sanctity of an honest mans oath.
What the political views of Mr.. viii
son, chief clerk in the office of Comp
troller General Jones, may be, do mo-
know. He was a witness sworn for the
defense. He was the only eye witnes.
sworn for the defense whose testimon,
was not attacked. His testimony was
valuable and only valuable in corrobo
rating the theory of the State; il
strengthened the dying declaration OF
Mr.. GonzalesIit, placed Tillman from
two to two and half feet only from the
outside of the sidewalk and made the
direction of his aimed weapon transverse
across the sidewalk, towards the wall OF
the transfer station.
At the bail hearing one w. H. Hal
made an affidavit, claiming that he was
an eye witness to the shooting and cor
roborating in 'tevery particular the ao
count given by Richard Holspnback
Such the record shows. Hall was pres
ent at the trial last week. He was pres
ent when Lorick was on the stand OF
Immediately after. The defense did not
swear him. Why? Was the hard lesson
of Lorick's testimony enough? And yet
Holsonback and Lorick are the only eye
witnesses, except the prisoner, who in
any degree support the defense. Hol-
sonback's character has been attacked.
Lorick was not allowed to answer ques.
tions imputing that more than once he
had been charged with larceny.
The witness Hyatt, for the defense,
swore that he saw pistol in Mr.. Con
zales' hip pocket the day before the
shooting and the one thing about the
appearance of Mr.. Gonzales that he was
emphatically sure of was that he did
not wear glasses. The defense admits rs
true that Mr.. Gonzales without glasses
could not see sufficiently Ito walk the
Streets" Hyatt saw the pistol when Mr..
Gonzales was leaning over to spit in a
cuspidor-not wearing glasses.
at some distance the prisoner saw Mr..
Gonzales approaching and "eyeing him
intently" How far away can you tell
that man wearing glasses is ''eyeing''
you?
Senators Brown, Talbird, Mrs. Melton,
Mr.. Lide, August Schiedman and others
testify that Mr.. Gonzales was almost
abreast of the two Senators and Tillman
when the shot was fired. The course of
Bowling at the Jail that the bullet would
shoot straight.
Clark and others swear that Holson-
back gave to them statements about the
shooting that conflict with his bail affi-
davit and statement on the witness
stand. Holsonback declares that when
Iillman was about at GerviaS street he
was at the State House steps and over
took Tillman by the time of the shoot
ing, while Tillman was crossing the
street!
Witness White did not know Mr.. Con.
zales; his testimony as to the ''white
feather threat is wholly dependent on
that of Holsonback.
Tillman swore in his testimony that
he wrote an article to tho Winnsboro
News and Herald in 1890, and acknowl-
edged moment later his own letter of
1892 saying that he did not write it.
Tilman swore that w. ii. Newbold
told him that he might expect Mr.. Con
zales, if he drew his pistol to draw it
from his side coat pocket. Newbold
was at the trial, but was not sworn. In
his bail affidavit Tillman swore that he
knew nothing of Mr.. Gonzales habit of
carrying his hands in his coat pockets.
The case for tho defense substantially
is that Tillman had heard of threats by
Mr. n a m
attack; that he believed from The State 8
editorials it's editor was in frame of
mind to kill him; that he saw Mr.. Con
zales on the outside of the sidewalk; that
Mr.. Gonzales turned to the inside and
thrust his hands deeper into his pockets
in way that he interpreted an offensive
movement; that he placed his hand on
his pistol when he first saw Mr.. Gonzales :;
that the turn by Mr. Gonzales brought
him towards Tillman; that Mr.. Gonzales
thumbs were out when Tillman first saw
him, and that he plunged his whole
hand into his pocket; that he fired
because he believed he was about to be
shot.
Why should Editor Gonzales wish to
have killed 1illman Tillman was not
in his way. AS a candidate for Office he
had been defeated and discredited. He
was in nobody's way. His term of Office
as Lieutenant Governor was about to ex-
lO XIII ID man WOultl nave
supreme trouble and sacrifice on the
part of the editor of The State. 1t
would have meant, speaking from a
purely selfish point of view, at least
serious if not permanent interruption to
his career as newspaper editor. Five
months previous Tillman's defeat had
been effected. Tillman's personality had
been dismissed from his paper and from
his mind. Tillman's attack on Gonzales
had been wholly harmless. His denun-
citation from the stump had counted for
nothing. Everybody in South Carolina
knows this.
If Mr.. Gonzales had shot Tillman; if
he were in the dock to-day instead of
Tillman, his defense might have been in
sanity, for any jury would have said that
an act 80 foolish on the part of Mr.. Con
Zales could not have proceeded from a
sound mind.
Mr. Gonzales had no pistol when he
was shot. Is it probable that man of
his intelligence would have behaved as a
man wearing ono? Would he have
thought to bluff Tillman
No, an unarmed man was shot down
in the streets of Columbia. The witness
so close to Mr.. Gonzales that almost she
could have touched him tcstifies that his
face was placid, perfectly calm, and
that he seemed absorbed in thought
when the shot was fired" Was Mr..
Gonzales looking towards Tillman when
tho ball struck him?
Do Good-lt Pays.