The Washington times., 1905-06-20
Calls Inspectors Bloodhounds.


The next point touched upon in this
able argument was the conduct Of the
Postoffice inspectors in tracking Craw-
ford from place to place, and even TO
the bedside of his dying mother.
They were the bloodhounds on his
track, and If he had been guilty man
he would have felt the hot blood upon
his cheek, but he was an innocent man.
In speaking about the interview
Crawford had with the Fourth Assist
ant Postmaster General and the inspec-
tors In the private room, characterized
by Crawford as a 'sweat-box, he re-
ferred to Mr.. Bristow as the chie1 IN
quisitor" and said they 'sweated the
blood out of Crawford trying to find out
what he knew.
Mr.. Worthington closed in an eloquent
appeal 70 the jury 10 remember the I'M
portance of their positions, urging them
to be sure that there was no reasonable
doubt in their minds before they fopno
the defendant guilty. He declared tiiat
he Government had failed to convict
the defendant. and called upon the jury
! to strictly follow the evidence
Mr.. Carlisle's Speech.
Mr.. Carlisle began his speech at 1:Zo
and Immediately plunged into the case
He took up the question of difference
in the dates set by the Government and
Crawford for the first meeting between
Lorenz and the defendant.
The date fixed by the Government was
June 4, 1902, and Crawford says it was
April is or II. 1902. He said that gen
I orally the question of dates is not ma
terial. but the date in this case is very
material
What motive had Lorenz for fixing
the date in June?" asked Mr.. Carlisle.
He had gone before the District Attor-
ney to show that ne was an innocent
man-to show that he had been imposed
upon by this willy young man. He want
ed 10 show that when he came 10 WASH
ington he found the contract already
drawn and signed. His theory was TO
show the District Attorney and this
court that he was the victim of Craw
| ford. That was his motive!
Calls Lorenz Perjurer.
Mr. Carlisle went on to say that Lo-
+, REM was a perjurer-
Now, we have not said that the Gov
eminent put this witness upon the stand
knowing that he was committing per
| jury That would be q serious charge
4 to make against the District Attorney
/ But we have said and l say now that
! the Government put this witness upon
the stand in this case knowing that he
had perjured himself In a recent trial In
which the Government was concerned.
They brought hi mhere knowing that
ne had sworn falsely and ask you 10 be
lieve him.
IF they do not ask you to believe
him, what in the name OF sense are
I they bringing him here for. They are
/ putting him upon the stand merely foI
! the purpose of letting you see just
what kind of man he IS, or else they
want you 10 believe his testimony
Although the counsel for the Gov
eminent In this case have declared with
| great emphasis that they have enough
! evidence without LorcnZ 10 convict
( Crawford / have the right to say that
! the Government does not believe it has
J enough evidence to convict the defen-
dant or they would never have put
Iorenz upon the witness stand. How
/ will they explain to you that they have
! enough evidence 10 convict Crawford
/ when they put this man, whom they
I know TO be a perjurer, upon the stand;
Testimony Should Be Disregarded,
While II is not a rule of law, L think
ii is reasonable to say to the jury thai
If they find that a witness has knowing
/ ~ sworn falsely to any material fact
! IN "A case, they may disregard the en-
! tire testimon. of that witness.
| MIR Carlisle then took up Two or three