The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-05-21

.aiv in MS CUtfk t uIOn " Imperative |
s.cessity OF disregarding politics and
Considering only the evidence in the
80 lie had told the Jurors that they
~ou,d be false TO their duty II they
o.rmitted their deliberations to be
,,nssd by politics. Nothing could have
Zen clearer, more emphatic than this
mart Of the charge.
~ hardly think 1t Is necessary to go
h.cL to that" he replied to Mr.. Zuill.
~ should have thought that my instruc-
,ions were perfectly clear"
This Jurors looked doubtfully at one
another for a moment and then filed out
Of the court room. Justice Andrews
then formally adjourned court until the
morning.
The case vent into the hands Of the
Jury after MIR. WINS. In the morning.
hsd delivered a mastery address and
Justice Andrews, in the afternoon, had
s,rsyed the facts and recited the law
IN a charge of absolute clearness and
incontestable fairness.
Heart 81 Ivins's Argument.
The heart Of the argument made by
Mr. Wins was that Theodore Roosevelt,
Notorious for looseness OF tongue. had
come TO consider himself above and be-
yond the law and had deliberately. ma
iiclously and falsely held Mr.. Barnes
I'm 10 shame AM ulSkTdtt DttduSt WI.
Barnes had interferej with his politi-
cal ambitions
Mr.. Wins was very careful. however.
10 insist that political matters should
have no bearing on the suit n that
the fury must regard II as an issue be-
tween man aid man.
Mr. WINS spoke very quietly. very
deliberately. He seldom employed in
yective. He seldom addressed Col.
Roosevelt directly. But his wit played
over the Colonel's career and over the
evidence like a ~searchlight, revealing
svery inconsistency. every humorous
contradiction.
He ridicuied tho contention made by
NJ. Bowers that the Colonel must not
b punished. but must be saved to guide
ne nation. He laughed at the
mighty Nimrod who came roaring to the
stand" He teered At Roosevelt's rels-
lions With Plat.
He asked the Jurors IL they could
imagine George Washington or Abra-
hAn lincoln. to whom Col. Roosevelt
Ind bean compared by Mr.. Bowers.
ENG Q thing so unjust and malicious as
ne attack on Mr.. Barnes.
Ard with great subtlety. keen logic
onl whaling memory he sought to rid
6s The evidence against Mr.. Barnes n
\ Justify Mr.. Barnes's public and pri-
Nts actA
The One Issue.
Mr.. WINS insisted that Col. Roosevelt
had had but one idea. ito kill Barnes"
and that the one issue in the case was
the matter OF v~eracity betw. en- the two
men. He insisted that Barnes had every
right TO be believed and that Col. Roose-
Welt ought not to expect to be believed.
The charge delivered by Justice An
ArauS rnnAf,sal ngsnt,t Vra iaA frnrr, zra1-
tlcally every person who heard 1t. 1t
vas devoid OF meaningless Ito the lay
mani technical phrases.
II cut through the tangled. confused
evidence and found its way straight to
the essential points involved. The main
poin, Of the whole charge is that there
Is only one complete defence to a suit
for libel and that is proof that the ac-
clsations are true.
The only matt RS susceptible OF proof,
D Justice Andrews's opinion. were that
NJ. Barnes had a corrupt agreement
with Mr.. Murphy TO bring about cleo
ton of a Democratic Senator in 1911
and that Mr.. Barnes received campaign
contributions from Democrats and Re
publicans and agreed to furnish protec-
ton 10 the private business OF the con-
t~rbutors.
Mr. WINS began his address OF two
hours and forty minutes Immediately
after the opening of court. He began
very quietly and seldom departed from a
measured style of delivery. Occasion
ally. however. ne emphasized a point by
full toned shout as he turned from the
Jury to Col. Roosevelt and from Col.
Roosevelt back to the jury.
Attacks Bowers's Appeal.
II was a little surprised" ne said.
when toward the close OF his address
Nj. Bowers forgot his function as a law
yer and went back to the landing Of the
Pilgrims. Oratory Is destructive to rea-
soning. as a rule. MIR. Bowers's APP
peal was not an appeal to reason. II
wasn't ar appeal to the evidence in this
Gaze. What has the future usefulness
Of Mr.. Roosevelt or OF Mr.. Barnes got
10 do with this case?
This is a case between ~ and man.
plead with you to dismiss all that
from your minds. This is not a political
discussion, but an action ut law. What
has the fact that American history, like
all Gaul, may be divided into three
parts, or that Theodore Roosevelt may
be compared to George Washington and
Abraham Lincoln got to do with this
case?
There is nothing here that should
cause dissension between Republicans.
TlogresslNes or Democrats between
catholics or Protestants Masons, Odd
Fellows. Elks or Eagles. The great
question is. should any man be placed
sno'e the law. placed above the reach
0, any law The idea that any man is
above the law is something l cannot
imagine any man considering.
is Theodore Roosevelt beyond the
reach OF the law? ! cannot see that he
" he Is as much within the law as you
VI When you go into the Jury
IOom YOU go there forgetting that you
are Progressives, Republicans or Dem
o1sts' and only remembering hat you
~ Jurors trying to do you duty ac-
ordlig TO our oaths.
suppose that in the latitude that
slo"cd In addressing a jury ] might
"au 10 you "A quotation from Emer-
.n or a passage from Homer or a
nedtse on some form of religion,
melhodist, Episcopal or Catholic. I
msn' read to you a fairy tale and. in
ueeu' there Is one fairy tale that ]
snaU have TO tell you, OF rather to ex-
Kan TO you, for it was brought into
Nus case by the defendant himself.
No Nan Above the Law.
NO man is above the law. Thomas
emerson was at one period OF his life
~ hhancial difficulties, hut he did not
nay That because of his position he
"s abov" the workings of the bank
ll'IN aHIHtHV a-l - "