The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1913-07-23

4 n Z 8 X Il 4 II f'{g ( 4
The principal witnesses for the state
were Assistant States Attorney Mad
den, States Attorney Maennel, Clerk
or Court Hanson and Fahlgren, and
otherS of minor Importance at least
as to the main facts to be proven.
Let us take the, testimony of Mad
den first: Ife testified that a certain
box in the basement which contained
the Indirect heating radiators had been
cut open after the Anderson house
had been turned over to the attorneys
Tor the defense or rather the Ander-
son relatives. This he was positive
OF and no mistake about it. This box
had a connection with the den and by
means Of a hot air register to permit
the hot air to pass into the room, or
den as it is called, and his testimony
convincing the jury that Anderson,
after the shooting, had thrown the
shell extracted from the gun into this
register, which would fall to the bot
tom Of the tin box and that the de-
Tense had cut this box open in the
bottom to get the shell. A child ought
to know that there must be a hole in
the bottom of this box to permit the
air to circulate UP through the regis
ter in the floor Callahan, who had
worked in putting in the box, and
Howard Miller of Bismarck, the
plumber soon disproved this state
ment. The plumber had cut this box
open last winter, and there was no
question in the minds of the jury as
to that fact Then the testimony of
the states attorney as to the red lint
which was found on only one ramrod,
and that with the aid of a glass, but
the rods being in evidence the jury had
no difficulty in seeing red lint on three
of the ramrods with the naked eye.
Then again, the testimony of Hanson
when he admitted that as far as he
was, concerned they could cut him,
Anderson into inch pieces and throw
him in the Missouri river" 1t seems
to us that Hanson's vindictiveness had
gotten away with his better judgment
and it was not safe to rely on the
testimony of one whose feelings were
so bitter against the defendant. And
now let us ask you another question:
If you were juror and with such te1s-
timony and the question of a fellow
beings life depended upon what weight
was to be given such testimony, what
would you do? The state evidently,
was aware of the fact that they had
failed to make a case against Ander-
son for Attorney Lawrence practically
admitted as much in his opening state
ment, when he said, that when he
went to his room during the noon re-
cess he was inclined to believe tn
magnetism of Mr.. Bangs and his in
genuity in assembling evidence would
have led him to support a verdict Of
acquittal were he juror.
1 know we jurors learned of many
facts concerning this case after we
had brought in our verdict which
might have changed the result in this
case had the same statements been
presented to the jury during the trial
by competent witness under oath; but
let me ask, does the public expect that
q jury Is to base a verdict on street
rumors heard before and after the
trial is over; and let me ask you an
other question, if such statements were
true why were they not brought out
in the evidence? Does the public ,ex-
pect the Jurors to go out after the
evidence in the case or do they rely
on the prosecution officers to present
the facts to jury? Respectfully,
Edward Robson.