Tombstone epitaph., 1920-03-14

toin close. especially in view of the fact that it was only proper that the prosecution should know the matter of the defense before beginning argu- ment against il. This was concur red in by the attorneys for the de fendant, who also agreed that the jury should be absen. during the ar gumeni The jury was therefore ex- cused until o'clock in the afte.- noon.
 The argument for the defense was opened by W. H Burgess. chief coun- sel for the defense. the gist of whose remarks, up to the time when he be- gan his quotations of authorities. fol- lows. It is. in the main, discussion of the law of necessity. and of the reasons why. in the opinion of him self and his associates of the depor- taticns a, Bisbee on July F. 1917.
 Line of Defense
 No more important or interesting case than this has ever been called before a court. Months have been spent in the preparations for the ,rial. and of the time that has been consumed in these labors the greater part had been used in looking for and determining the law in the ac- tion now under discussion here. We are of the opinion that the principles involved in this case are as old as our law and as enduring as human nature The defense that includes those principles are founded upon two rcposi;ions-firs;. the law of self-de.ense, and second. the law of . necessity.
 If this were a case of only self defense-and this is law which ev- cry court must defend-little or notn- ing would have to be said concerning it. We think. however, that the fact that many are involved in the main transaction and in the ensuing cas ,s oh hA inc Ia that a man has the right to defend himself or those dependent upon him. not does it abridge his right because two are jointly or severally attacked, or because three of four or five are in jeopardy. And I may say in this connection that We may assert and will assert with all earnestness, that this right belongs also to an entire community as well as to the indivi- dual citizen. The right of commun ity to defend itself against aggressors whether armed or unarmed, who may imperil the lives and property of th- community. is d principle established by law and rooted in the very na- ture of human existence That prin- ciple. established by law. is our de fense
 Akin to this principle of self-de- fense. and yet differing 10 il. is the law of necessity. founded in reason and almost incapable of definition CT limitation. in this or any other ciy.- lized community One of the writers 10 whom we will call attention says that seli-defense is the right to de lend ones self from aggression, and that necessity is that which protects his invasion of the right Of others. ! The origin of the one is in primal ns;inct-strOnser than any other the origin of the other is in the max i'm that the safety of the public is the supreme law. IL is our firm be lief that these two principles govern this case and that upon these priE- ciples must this case be defended. We are entitled. therefore. 10 show that the action of July i2, 1917 was rendered necessary by conditions then existing; that the lives and property Of the people Of Bisbee were in peril; that threats had been made against both; that, above everything else. the capacity of the United States tss a nation then at war and bearing the responsibilities Of an entife world. had been meaaced When d man is attacked by another who has gun and protects his life by talk ing that of the agressor he has 8 right to show the conditions that sur