Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1903-10-14
EVIDENCE ALL In.
A Review of the Evidence i'm the
Jim Till man Case by w. w.
Ball.

With the testimony all heard in
the case of James Fl. Tillman and
the arguments about to begin, it
may be interesting to emphasize
some of the points that have made
themselves conspiciously plain
In the proceedings.
In spite of the injection of pol
ltlcs into the trial, In spite of the
dragging In of Senator B. r. Till
mans name, 1t has been demon.
! rt~"tc1 s~R' -; -,.I-- .L~t ,>,~-,-.
men of the former Reform or
TIllmanite have had no more
sy mpathy with the shooting OF
Mr.. Gonzales than members of
the faction that he was formerly
identified with. Lock at the ex-
ample of Mr.. Talbird-a reformer
and a State senator. 1t was to
be expected that he would tell
the truth to the best of his abiI.
lty, to the best of his recollection,
and that is what, without doubt,
he did. Adams and Bowling too,
were Tillman's friends-close
friends. They are among the
strongest witnesses for the State.
This is no matter for surprise.
Politics does not affect the sanc.
tlty OF an honest mans oath.
What the political views of
Mr.. Wilson, chief clerk in the
office of Comptroller General
Jones, maybe donot know. He
was q witness sworn for the de-
Tense. He was the only eye wit.
ness sworn for the defense whose
testimony was not attacked.
dis testimony was valuable and
only valuable in corroborating
the theory Of the State, it streng
thened the dying declaration OF
Mr.. Gonzales-it placed Tillman
t,GGa two to two and half feet
I only froL' the outside of the side
walk and ,rG3c thc direction CT
his aimed weapon transverse,
across the sidewalk, towards the
ta,
AT the bail hearing, one - H.
Hall made an affidavit, claiming
that he was an eye witness to the
shooting and corroborating in
every particular" the account
given by Richard Holsonback.
Such the record shows. Hall was
present at the trial last week.
de was present when Lorick was
on the stand or Immediately after.
The defense did not swear him.
Why! Was the hard lesson of
Lorlck's testimony enough? And
yet Holsonback and LorIck are
the only eye.witnesses, except
the prisoner, who in any degree
support the dererse. Holson-
backs character has been attack
ed. LOrick was not allowed
TO answer questions imputiug
that more than once he had been
charged with larceny.
The witness Hyatt for the de-
Tense swore that he saw pistol
in Mr.. Gonzales hip pocket the
day before the shooting and the
one thing about the appearance
of Mr.. Gonzales that he was en-
phatically sure Of was that he
did not wear glasses. The defeu Q
sc admits as true that Mr.. Con
Zales without glasses could not
see sufficiently "to walk the
streets" Hyatt saw the pistol
when Mr.. Gonzales was leaning
over to spit in cuspldor-not
wearing glasses.
At some distance the prisoner
saw Mr.. Gonzales approaching
and "eyeing him intently. :" How
far away can you tell that a man
wearing glasses is "eyeing" you?
Senators Brown, Talbird, Mrs.
Melton, Mr.. Lide, August Schied-
man and others testify that Mr..
Gonzales was almost abreast of
the two senators and Tillman
when the shot was fred The
course of the bullet proves it.
Tillman told Spann Bowling at
the Jail that the bullet would
! ahOOt straiOht