The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-10-07
THE DEFENSE.

What the defense VIII Oe IS, OI
course, impossible to conjecture. TO
break down the evidence OF the prose
cution is an accepted mode OF proceed
ure which will prove impossible IN this
case. 1t is useless to impeach the vera
city of such persons as Senators Thom.
as Talbird and George W. Brown, OF
Mrs. Emma G. Melton, c. NJ: Llde ana
the other e-witnesses-all OF whom
are persons of unusual intelligence and
the highest repute- To prove by wat
nessess their EQUALS in character ana
intelligence that n G. Gonzales was
about to assault J. H. Tillman when
-Tillman shot Gonzales is necessary Tor
the making Of case OF self-de1enSe.
Can it be made? There IS no other le-
cal proyocation forthe killing when
Tillman can plead, unless 1t be that ne
knew Gonzales had threatened MS lie
or that he had sent the defendant
warning message. The implication OF
the defendants statements up to TINS
time has been that some such justlhca-
ton would be attempted. The difficult
ty of proving - cannot be undressing
ted even by the defendants own counsel.
Already one witness for the defense
has testified and she told OF alleged re-
marks the deceased made IN her pres
ence concerning the prisoner. Miss
Roper, trained nurse who repeated
conversation in a death chamber, sim,
ply said that Mr.. Goszales said he "had
made Mr.. Tillman show the white
feather twice, that Col. Tiilman had
challenged him to two duelS which ne
did not acknowledge and that Col. ILL
man had no more resentment tnan 10
come in the hotel lobby and offer him
a cigar, which he refused" There IS
not the semblance of a threat IN that
nor did Miss Roper say Mr.. Gonzales
had made one. Her testimony, IN fact,
haG no bearing at all o1 the killing,
since she merely repeated the opinion
of Jim Til!man which NJ. Gonzales had
expressed to her, the same opinion ne
so often expressed in his paper.
THE HIGHER Law
This is the legal case. There are IN
evidence in the court at Lexington
every COPY OF The State published dur
ing the year 1902. 1t was during SIX
of those twelve months that n. G. Con
zales as editor of The State so per.
sistently assailed the public record OF
the then lieutenant governor. These
editorials have been read to the jury
and the Jurors will have the right to
inspect them for themselves. Can any
thing be found therein to Justify the
defendant in believing that n. G. Con
zales would assault him on sight: II
not, is there yet anything said in those
| editorials which tended 20 destroy the
GOOD reputation which the defendant
NAV claim to have had: Did those edi-
torials unjustly anauntruly attack his
character? The prosecution has put the
editorials in evidence in order that the
tiurors may see for themselves what
they contain-whether they be scurrll-
Gus, unfounded, reckless diatrlbes or
whether they be specific, definite
charges sustained by ample and IN
shakable proof: charges approved and
reiterated by majority OF the South
Carolina newspapers: charges against
the second highest officer OF the com
monwealth aspiring to. the highest
Office, not charges against private
citizen nor one not a candidate for pub
| lie confidence. And it remains to be
established that these charges were
prompted BY personal hostility and not
| by a high and noble sense OF an EDITORS
responsibility to the people.