Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1907-07-27

reading or give any other token that
he had heard.
at is condition we are facing in
the United States today. and not a
theory" continued Heney; "a condi-
ton that has not been created by the
Boxtons and the Lonergans and the
Coffeys, but by the clasping of mer-
cenery hands by the public utility cor
poration officials and the bawdy house
keepers in an unholy conspiracy to
seize the political machinery. to have
weak men elected to office who can be
bought by them In the fdrtherance Of
diabolical system of corruption that
is fast destroying the rights and lib
critics of you and me. Only one thing
more is needed to crush our boasted
Independence into dust.
when this hideous and insiduous
system reaches the Threshold of the
court and into the jury room. God
help the people of the United States:
when bribes can be slipped under the
jury room door without detection, God
help the United States; when that can
be done with impunity. God help tho
people Of the United States"
Concluding Heney said: thinner
on the stand told the court in your
hearing that mis- reason for refusing
to testify was not that he feared he
would fncriminate himself. Is there.
then. a man i'm the jury box who
doubts that he would have testified II
the attorneys for Glass had SO much
as by the movement of a hand signi-
fled their Willingness that he shouldy
This YOU must consider. You must
consider the, fact that Mr.. Daley, tho
detective for the defense, whom YOU
see day by day carrying papers into
the court room. carrying papers to MIR.
Delmas. was with thinner at Carmel
by-the-Sea, in the period Immediately
before thinner made up his mind not
TO testify. that Daley accompanied him
out of town and back into town again.
why would a man like thinner go
to Jail for five days. and again for one
day. and for five days again. and risk
three prosecutions on misdemeanpr
charges by which he could be impris-
oned for eighteen months, IL he and
he alone had the knowledge that would
free Glass from this crime and that
would not harm Zimmer?'
Heney concluded his argument with
an appeal LOT COnNfCtiCn barring Tea-
sonable doubt.
The following are few Of the more
important sections of Judge Lawlors
charge to the jury:
1T is not required that there should
be direct evidence of any expressed
agreement of the alleged conspiracy
1t is competent to prove that the de-
fendant was a party to a conspiracy
for the commission OF crime. by cir
cumstantial as well as by direct evil
dence"
Common design is the essence Of
conspiracy and this may be made to
appear when the parties steadily.pur-
sue the same object, when acting Nep-
arateiy or together by common or by
different means. leading to the same
unlawful result"
while corroborating evidence must
create more than mere suspicion, it Is
not required that IL he absolutely con-
vincing. 1t is sufficient, If standing
alone. 1t tends to connect the defend
ant with the crime"
The prosecution must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt, first. the bribing
of Boxton; second, the connection of
the defendant with the giving of the
bribe; even If the bribing OF Boxton
is proved to your satisfaction, still, il
the prosecution has failed to prove the