The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-06

proclaimed the independence Of the legal
profession. They proclaimed that lawyer
had his duties to perform and that he
ought to have right to perform them
without fear even of the United states
Court. Long before that decision was rem
dered you and /. Mr.. Duncan, have never
interests OF our clients. We have stood up
for them under the scathing abuse or
courts, under misconstruction and often
times we have been compelled TO force
verdict of innocence when the court has
made up its mind that the verdict should
be one of guilt 1t was the dignity OF our
profession that We stood for, and that is
what 1 stand for now. Logsdon is my
client. Neither you nor Mr.. Smith nor the
Indianapolis News can scare me away from
the proper discussion of the situation. This
court has not tried to. but If Ii had would
say the same thing TO this court. The court
might send me to Jail, but would say
what thought nevertheless; am satished
the court would get the worst of 1t in the
end So much for Mr.. Brown. That is all
/ said about him and all l have criticised
him for. Your Honor remembers the evil
dence as to his connection with the case.
PAYS RESPECTS TO HUNT.
"Now DR.. Hunt--the only excuse that
my friend Mr.. Duncan had for DR.. Hunt
was that he had known his father and his
mother and they were honorable people.
But that is not argument, Mr.. Dun
can, absolutely none, and you know it.
How many Sunday school teachers, bank
presidents and ex-preachers have gone to
the penitentiary within your knowledge.
within your personal knowledge? You
judge men by their acts, not by their par
entagei DR.. Hunt msrepresented this
league. deliberately and purposely. He has
not acted the part of an honorable gen.
tIeman' an, and there Is not member be OF the
ate his action, every one of them. He is
marplot man who Is fitting running
mate with Noel.
ut is a dangerous thing, If the court
please, to put small man in responsible
position. He can commit more forlies that
VIII result 10 more trouble than all the
crimes that can be committed by men with,
in invidious and mean motives. Put fool
where he don't belong and it will not be
long until his friends are ashamed of him.
"A whip for the horse. a bride for the ass,
but a rod for the fools back said Solo
mon, and Solomon ought to know. That
is the only defense you have here of DIR.
Hunt and his co,duct-that he had hon.
orable parents.
NOEL AS RICHARD III.
James w. Noei-need / refer to him
again? Why. his conduct in this case
stands outlined before this court upon
canvas and 1t cannot be wiped out, an
migrate and an ignoramus a man of over
weening ambition. without ability TO car
ry out his scheme. When you find a
Richard the Third with an overweening
ambition. but with ability coupled with it,
you can respect him even in his villainy:
but when you come across an absolute
burned fool, who has not got sense enough
to come in when ii is wet and he tries
to occupy a great mans place. like Folks,
why the angels simply weep and the gods
grow weary.
And Stahl, the other man, IL the court
please, what excuse Is there for him, the
Hessian, the peripatetic reformer, the man
who is here to-day and yonder tomorrow
and L think the real reason why they are
fighting this case Is because they are
afraid he will run away, If this court binds
him over, and the chances are he will
what have they got to say for him? Why,
they say Folk says he Is good man. Why
didn't they get Folks affidavit? oh, these
people don't have to swear to anything.
We are expected TO take their word for
anything. Noel and Martin who came here
tell us that this man Folk cried this man
up to the skies. We have just as good
evidence, have just good evidence
as that that he is an migrate, poltroon,
and that he has been discharged for In
capacity and because his employers didn't
think he was an honest man. That is just
And he does not look like very good man
to me, except in size, and l am not much
afraid Of that.
DEFENSE OF LoGsDON.
Now, what is the matter with this man
Logsdon that these people should rise up
against him? Why is it that these sleuth-
hounds should turn their legs up against
this man? His character, if the court
please. under this evidence is just as good
as Mr.. Browns or Mr.. Noels or DR.. Hunts.
with his famous parentage, and the stool
pigeon Stahrs, is it not? Is 1t not? What
was there against 1T 20 cause your animad-
versions and your criticism-I mean in the
evidence, Mr.. Duncan, not your rhetorical
periods. What does character mean, If the
court please? Who has wagged tongue
against Ed Lossdon's character for hon
esty except the men Immediately engaged
here, and l will come to that directly. His
character, if the court please, ought to
stand between the criticism as the wall OF
fear does between man and destruction.
What does character mean. if it is not to be
a defense? We gave this poor importation,
this quandom client of yours, this man who
is not your real client, chance to go on
the witness stand so that we could have
shown his real reputation. and you knew
that was loaded for bear, and you didn't
dare to put him on the witness stand And
yet you attack Logsdon. What have you
got against Logsdon except the reports of
this cowardly client of yours that didn't
dare go upon the witness stand and give
the prosecution a chance to show just ex-
actly what kind of a man he is? Before
you arraign and denounce us, or me, be
honest. Don't assume a virtue you haven't
got.
NOTHING BUT RUMORS.
Before you pull down your neighbor'S
character be sure that you know the ground
you stand on. What do you know against
Ed Logsdon in this case? 1 will tell you;
1 will come to it directly. He was under an
investigation invited by the man who ap-
pointed him to office. Why? Because he
was guilty? No; but because there were
rumors. We find the man appointed to rep
resent that committee saying to Mr.. Ems
ley, which is not denied, that before he
went to st. Louis there was nothing against
this man under the sun; that he was as
straight a string. That is a pretty good
reputation, Is 1T not, from your own wit
ness?
"Noel admitted to Expert and Wynne that
Logsdon was an honest man and straight
as string. Don't you believe Expert and
Wynne Expert, an anti-administration Re-
publican-and whenever you find these anti
fellows they are good deal worse than a
Democrat, a good deal-and yet Expert
swears that Noel told him that Logsdon
was an honest man after Stahl's arrest if
the court please. And Wynne swears to the
same thing. All, but how they Rugged the
delusion of Shea's testimony to their breasts
as defense. 1t simply shows that when a
anything-anything, no matter where it
comes from.
NOW, what does Shea testify to? Shea
says he didn't hear that kind of a state
ment. What does Noel testify to? He says
he did make the statement that Logs
don was an honest man, but says he used
ii in the past tense and not in the present
tense. Well, reconcile NoePs testimony
with Shea before you criticise Wynne and
Eppart Reconcile he Of