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

pie? Do you think that anybody that has
appeared upon your side, or that mas s ,yan
either one OF these two men? Now, hon
estly, do you? Who are they? If they are
or admit it. for nobody else does: They
are just as good people as live in the city
OF Indianapolis. and with just as clean an
appreciation of the moral situation Mas as
just as good; and they say that your man
Noel did say that and the only way OUT
that they lied, and you cannot do IL. And
you cannot make the community do II
just simply want TO picture to you what
the real situation is in this case, and what
you have been attempting to do.
Now you must remember that Mr.. Noel
is the same man who denied that he said
Stahl gave the whole snap away ike
farmer, and yet even your vaunted man
Shea sanctioned that report in which IL
is shown that he did say it, False in one
thing. false in everything Mr. Duncan:
That is the rule of the law. And If man
so CLOSES over one statement the pre-
sumption is that his conscience is piiant
enough to gloss over another. especially II
that other condemns him to be a liar, ana
II not that at least fool.
GUS RAHKE AND GAMBLING.
why. then, is it. if the court please, that
Mr.. Duncan justifies his attack upon Mr..
Logsdon, and why does he make this kind
of a virulent attack? Why, simply because
his real client is not the Hessian Stahl.
Now, upon what does he base his attacks
against Mr.. Logsdon? Let analyze that
for a minute, and if leave out anything
/ would like to have the astute gentlemen
upon the other side call my attention to it.
Upon what do they base their attacks upon
LogsdOn? oh, your speech, Mr.. duncan,
about Gus Rahke and gambling was beau
tful. The papers say 1t was classic L
agree with them. 1t was more than classic.
1t was lurid, but IL / had been on your
side. with the capacity the News ascrlbes
10 me for using savage language. think L
could have beaten you in denouncing Gus
Rahke. Who loves Gus Rahke? Who cares
for him? Who is defending Gus Rahke? A
soldier or fortune, man with Loaded dlce
In his pocket to prey upon the community
an eyesore to all good people Who is de-
Tending him? You cannot escape here by
attempting to put US in the position OF de-
Who is Heller? Why, he is the man to
whose place you sent your telegram. Who
is defending him? Nobody. You simply
used old speech that you had written
out Mr.. Duncan. L think L heard you de-
liver that four or five years ago in another
case. and you have simply revamped it.
general proposition upon which everybody
can agree with you. Everybody agrees
with you on that but the inference you
have tried to have drawn was that Logs
don was protecting him. That is the infer
ence you tried to have drawn, and you
tried to have this man condemned in the
interests of your real employers by de-
nouncing Gus Rahke. Gus Rahke no doubt
has been guilty of many things, and no
doubt has prostituted young men, and no
doubt has ruined them. and no doubt VIII
do with this case? Have you fastened that
on Logsdon. except in the wild dreams OF
you connect the two? Why, by the lying
reports of your Hessian Stahl. Have you
got anything else? Is there anything else?
What else have you got? Not thing.
HAD NO EVIDENCE.
"Oh, yes, yes; you had the peanut
Drained Hunt, the soldier Of fortune, the
man with everything to gain and nothing
to lose, who said that on one occasion he
went out to Rahkes and he saw slot ma
chimes in operation, and what you were
pleased to call, with a magnificent curve
of your lip, indecent and vulgar pictures
Well, how did you connect them with my
client? Only in your own imagina ton.
Only in your imagination. You have said
that gambling was rampant and protected
in this town. Where is your evidence, Mr..
Duncan? People who think demand evil
dence. They don't want rhetoric, especially
when it is paid for.
THAT is the situation. If the court please.
That is the evidence upon which they are
trying to condemn Logsdon. Is there any
thing else? And yet we were compelled to
listen to magnificent periods denouncing
gambling and the running of young men
Kind of a trade from Mr.. Duncan, and he
did it well; his periods were magnificent
and especially when he stamped the floor
in empha sis. the hearts upon this side
sank in dismay. But when you come to
measure up the situation and how the
whole TRADE was based upon that mans
report, as / have said time and again, that
he was too cowardly to swear to, and the
statement of Hunts which amounted 10
nothing, and which did not connect my
client With 1t at all, what else have you
QOt2 Nothing =
TO BEAT THE LIBEL SUIT.
"And at the same time they are pretend
ing that Logsdon had nothing to do with
the Board of Safety or with the police de-
partment, and yet they are dumping this
whole burden upon him. They don't criti-
else the Board of Public Safety. They don't
criticise the mayor They don't criticise
the Council. They don't criticise the po-
lice. Oh no, they criticise Logsdon in or
der to beat that $4,000 libel suit that Mr..
Duncans employers have got on their
hands
Now they say that my man Logsdon.
| just as soon as this fellow came to him and
he discovered that he was trying to offer
him money, ought to have slapped his face
or kicked him down stairs. Well, l mag
| inc my friend Duncan, with his protuberant
abdomen, kicking man down stairs under
those circumstances! The situation is just
this, and If you will look at it that way it
Is All eADlalneu- MI IOSSQOn Is nODOQy
fool; he is not a spring chicken; he has
| bumped up against all kinds of men, from
priests TO gamblers; he knows the ms and
outs and the ways of men quite as well as
my friend Duncan, and when he found that
| this man was making an offer to him that
was not according to law, and which he
could not understand, of course, he did not
kick him down stairs. OF course, he did
not slap him in the face. He was under
| investigation. He knew they were after
| him. He knew they were laying traps for
nd ha haI = l,ac 1i,i. In,
his mind that this Hessian from St Louis
| was a man trying to trap him, IL the court
please, he just tolled him on and let him
work out his own damnation. That the
situation exactly Slap him in the face.
| Why, the chances are some justice of the
peace, for a fee, would have fined him for
doing it. Kick him down stairs? No. He
did what any wise man would have done
under the circumstances. He tolied him
agreed with him upon every proposition,
and If the court please, the reason why the
defense is both sorry and mad is because
we have found out who was back of him;
and that is where the shoe pincheS and
makes corns Mr.. Duncan, exactly.
THOSE BACK OF STAHL.
I'VE have found out who was back of
him. We do know what the nefarious
scheme was. We have found out, and
hence this mourning. and hence this appeal
TO morality. and hence this hiding behind
| false breastworks, and hence this procla-
| nation of superior holiness In the name
of institution, league that has been