The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-03-11
TWO SPEECHES MADE
 IN THE COOPER CASE
(coN4INUED FROM PAGE 1.)

 not enough evidence to bring a yer diet of acquittal then do not be de- tected in the act of falsifying and de- ceiving the jury.
 No Justification.
 ''I want you. gentlemen of the jury, to consider the condition of mind of these defendants. It is impossible to believe that three men on trial for their lives should tell anything that would injure themselves except by accident. Remem- Der. too, that no matter what Senator Carmack said on the stump or wrote in the Tennessean about Colonel Cooper, there was no justification for murder. The law gives another recourse. The defense introduced three editorials Even if the law permitted the staying of a man for defaming another upon what edi- toriaI. upon what sentence in these edi- torials, would they seek justification?
 General Meelzs says that murder for these editorials is justihable. He, a law yer, applies the unwrtten law to editors and says this is not the first time that the streets of our city have run red with the blood of men who offended against this self-made law. Is there anything in the law or the evidence of this case to justify this statement? If so, where is it?
 "They say that Senator Carmaek ac- cused Colonel Cooper of having reconciled Governor Cox and Governor Patterson. And there is not a word to show that this reconciliation was improper or that it was degrading to have effected it. Yet they consider it justification for murder. If so, what in the name of God should be the punishment meted out to John Sharp and Robin Cooper for the vile epithets applied to Senator Carmack? You heard the wit nesses repeat what these two defendants said of the dead man."
 Message To Carmack. General Garner took up the message Cooper sent to Carnlack. That if my name appears in the Tennessean again one of us must die" and applied to it Colonel Cooper's own explanation of it.. that he meant he would expose Senator Carmack's private life. General Garner asked if the jury could see how these two--the message and statement-could be reconciled. He followed Cooper down to the first conference in Bradford's of flee the morning of the killing. We find him still cursing and swearing and ap- plying in the presence of a lady the Vilest epithets to Senator Carmack. Did he tell his son he would expose Senator Car 1nack's private life? Not a word about it. No, instead what are his threats? We do not know; we do know that whatever he said caused his daughter in fright to telephone immediately: Papa is angry and threatening to kill Senator Carmacb on sight
 And when his son expressed a fear that Carmack might resent the insult in the note, what did Colonel Cooper draw from his pocket? pen to write the exposure of Carmacks life? No, revolver, a deadly weapon
 ''Colonel Cooper's own son believed the father was in a homcidal mood. He went on the streets and searched for him. They tell you now that they feared Carmack might kill him. Upon what did they base these fears? Had Carmack made threats Had he sent word that he meant to kill? No, gentlemen, but 1t was easier for the son to secure a deadly weapon than to find his father.
 No Word To Carmack.
 "AIl these men who have been here to testify that they were hurrying around to prevent Carmack from assauting Colonel Cooper tell you their efforts were direct ed at soothing Colonel Cooper. Not a word to Carmack, not an attempt to re- strain him. Why? Because they knew the man who was the only one likely to cause trouble was Colonel Cooper, and even Governor Patterson on his own tes- timony advised Robin Cooper to remain near his father. Why? Because the gov ernor in his heart feared that just what did happen would happen
 General Garner then referred to the eff forts of the defense to impeach Miss