Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-17

SuCQ dH ASsdulL COulQ not De QOne Dy one man. The placing Of the stones on the track was the work of a com
 binatton of a common purpose, and while some placed the stones others
 stood around aiding and approving. Miss Twining, the librarian, who lived half a mile away heard shouts and noise.
 It is said the accused are of good character and 1t is said also that they could not be guilty of this, that noth- ing would more harm their cause, yet, gentlemen of the jury, is there any doubt in your minds that this is the work of the strikers? Nearly seven weeks had gone by, the places they had abandoned were taken by others, and they were called "scabs" They did not take other peoples jobs did they, and yet they are called scabs. Did they take the places of those men ? Didn't they take places that had been abandoned, and for that they are call ed scabs.
 The officer, Keegan, testified he heard cries of murder and scalp and yet these men are called good characters.
 And what did the officer find? A
 man lying on the track, his head on one rail, his feet on the other.
 Winnegar entered the car with 8 re- volver in his hand and said Put up your hands, you -' and when Morrisette got off the the car he was l struck and some one said, Put him out of business. Kill the -." Nor rfsette said the last kick was admin istered by Willis Vandemark as he was I AnN No1@ F. fc a Jn such as him, nothing but kicks and blows. Vandemark said Promise me you will quit the town you or I will kill you" It was not Wolcott who struck that blow Who had any motive for striking the blow? These men who saw no chance of getting back their old positions on the cars They were familiar with every stick and stone and tie on the track; they knew the time the cars would pass; they knew the location. But the other side say this is not the work of strikers; they say 1t would injure their cause. They have spent good deal of time on Wolcott in this case, and I say now that of all the men in this l city since the strike he is Ahe one most talked about. Why? He was the first to squea1, the first to own up. He said he was foolish enough to go into it, but I will show you how he came to go into it. They call him moral leper, whatever that may mean. Does it not occur to you as rather inconsistent fin speaking of the character of the accused and then speak of WoIcott as they have? Was not Wolcott their companion, their friend? Was not Wolcott's place their place? It was and if you go tO play with the dogs you must expect to put up with the heas. Then MT Williams went over Wolcott's testimony, of his intimacy with the accused. He re- minded the Jury that Wolcott testified he gave Farnsworth the key of his place two weeks after and that it was not returned to him. 1t seemed, he went on, that the bulk of Wolcott's business came from the strikers, be- cause he testified '.the boys went back on him and his receipts went down to 80 or 40 cents a day" Wolcott closed his place when he found he was no longer safe here. He heard rumors that he had gone back on the strikers, and that that was the reason he left town. He thought it was not safe for him to stay here any longer. Vol colt has never committed any crime. The defense failed to show he has, though they tried hard to prove he was an old offender. without any foundation for such action.
 Gives O1in P. Hart a Rap.
 '.It is to the interest of everyone in the state that the perpetrators of this ch hn dA1 @ F. Hart's evidence shows the kind of man he is., He wanted to know what business Wolcott had with the sher- ifs. He did not say that Wolcott knew about the assault or was in it. Hart was the associate of the accused and of Wolcott. But Hart said he knew of the assault, and Mr Williams asked the jury what they thought of a man who would become accessory af- ter the crime? He claimed that Farms worth knew what was going on, and that he knew also where Wolcott was going; that Wolcott was not sick, but that somebody else was going to be made sick. How did Farnsworth hap pen to be there that night2 Did Vol colt tell him Were going up to mur- der the scabs?'s No, Farnsworth knew very we'll Wolcott said, "We all went up to trim the scabs.' MT Hamilton finds fault with him for breaking the oath he took. Do you find fault with him for that? Will, you forgive him or condemn him for breaking that oath in the interests of peace and that law and order might reign. His story is horrible one. How they went up the hill in the darkness, trusting to the gloom of night to conceal their actions and their identity. They gave those two men no time to do anything. That was not what they were there for; they had no time to consider the appeal, | For Gods saks, save my life" No, that was not what they were there for. No chance for Wolcott to get blow l They are our prizes said the strikers Let us get at them. They took our jobs., We must get satisfaction. No, l there was no room for WoIcott to get | a peck at them, and Officer Keegan in the distance heard the cries.
 MT Williams then recited the evil l