"But here is a significant fact to which I wish to direct your attention. Why should Dan Coughlin, on the Monday morning, before any one had charged that Dr. Cronin was murdered, when Captain Schaack said he would turn up all right, when he was not uneasy, when he told Mrs. Conklin to wait until night, when the world and every one almost had accepted the statement that the trunk had contained the body of a woman, on account of the statement made by a certain man, why should Dan Coughlin be so anxious about the horse his friend had driven? No one had told him that any one drove a white horse, and why should he say to Dinan, 'Don't mention it, because Cronin and I were not friends?' Gentlemen, at that time Coughlin knew that Dr. Cronin was murdered, and he knew that the white horse and buggy had carried him to his death. Think of the matter, and remember that it was on the Monday morning before any one had charged that anything had happened to Dr. Cronin that he was so anxious to have the matter concealed. Why was he induced to believe that that horse had taken Dr. Cronin to his death? No one had charged that he had anything to do with it; no one believed the poor woman, and why should Coughlin be so ready to believe it when Captain Schaack did not believe it, when the chief of police did not believe it, when the public prosecutor did not believe it, and when the community were led to believe that Dr. Cronin was alive? I ask you again, why should Dan Coughlin, on the 6th of the month, the second day after the murder, and before anything had been discovered, tell Dinan to keep still.

"This man, Forrest, tells you that because we have only one witness to a fact, therefore, it is put up and is a lie. He goes on to tell you about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that is about all he knows about the Bible. He says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not agreed, and he quotes that to show that Mrs. Conklin and the two Miss McNearneys when they gave a description of the man who called for Dr. Cronin lied, because, as he says, they agreed in their description. The trouble with him is they didn't tell the story all alike, but the material part of it they did tell alike. All that leads up to the identification of the man who drove Cronin, the central figure, they do agree upon, and that is true. The same way with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While they give it in different language, do not they all point to Calvary, and so it is with this evidence of the Misses McNearney and Mrs. Conklin, and the evidence also of Dinan; it is the evidence of witnesses who tell the truth and it all points you to Calvary. I do not intend to dwell upon all that Forrest has talked to you about. He has talked about the evidence of that wagon, and seems to think a good deal more of sound than he does of sight. He regards sound as being far better than sight, hence I think he will appreciate my speech on this account.

"He says that wagon was driven from away across the railroad crossing onto Fullerton avenue. No one saw it cross the railroad track, and Officer Steib says, the first he saw of it it was east of Ashland avenue. He also says that before he saw it he heard it rumbling over the railroad track, but he does not know whether it was this wagon he heard rumbling or some other. But there is not enough in it for us to stop long to consider whether it crossed the railroad track or not. The fact is the same. They did not see it until it was east of Ashland avenue, and then they saw it coming back on Ashland avenue. There is no reason why they could not drive around the block if they wanted to, but we do not know what course they took, yet we do know they could have taken that course very easily, and if they had taken a direct course they would have been tracked from the cottage to the place of their destination.

"Forest then says to you: 'It is strange, isn't it, that they drove right down toward the city, where they could be seen by the police force?' It does not seem that the police force hurt them any. They were seen by half a dozen officers and not stopped, and the man who drove the wagon did not seem afraid of police officers, but on the contrary seemed to know just what police officer to strike. They got along to Fullerton avenue, and they knew that it was just the very thing to do to drive along a street where they would not be suspected. Suppose they had driven along Ashland avenue straight to where they went to dispose of the body, they would have been unquestionably tracked. But we are not here to argue why they did or did not do certain things. Those men who murdered Dr. Cronin and thrust his body into the sewer, can probably tell you far better than I can. There is reason for acquitting the men if you believe them guilty, simply because we can not tell exactly the way they drove around or in what direction. The fact is they were seen on Fullerton avenue, going east, about half-past 11 o'clock. At 12 o'clock they were seen going north on Clark street, and at 1 o'clock they were at Evanston avenue and Edgewater, and one man sat on the wagon, facing backward.

"Another point. Some one during the trial, and I think I took that position myself, during the time Forrest was arguing the question of the trunk, said they kicked it open. Now, it does not matter whether they kicked it open or not. Men who could open a sewer could pry that lock open as well as any one else. He wants you to understand that the officer pried it off, but you will remember that those two honest Germans testified that they found the lid separate from the trunk, and that they gathered it up and put it with the trunk. Now, it does not matter whether the lock was broken open or whether the trunk was kicked open. The fact is it was locked; that the trunk was in the wagon and the key was gone. Is it for us to say whether they pried open that trunk or kicked it open from the rear? Our theory is that they kicked it open, and that when they found it would not open wide enough they pulled the lock off. We don't know how it was done. His clients can tell you better perhaps than we can if they had anything to do with it, which we insist they had under the evidence."

"I take an exception to that remark of Judge Longenecker's," said Mr. Forrest.

"Oh, yes," replied the State's Attorney, "take your exception.

Forrest also said that the key was found by a trunk-maker, because he found on the stand a man, Officer Lorch, who had worked once as a trunk-maker. Do you believe what Officer Lorch said as to where he found that key, or do you believe that he went and fitted a key to the trunk, then put some paint on it, put it where it was under the washstand, and then came into this court and swore to a lie? If you want to believe Forrest's statement against that of the officer, believe it. But we say that after they had got the trunk into the wagon they found that the trunk was locked and the key gone, but it does not matter. We could theorize as to how that key was missing on the floor, but it is not necessary. It is in evidence that that key was found in the cottage, and it is in evidence that the trunk was locked and had not a key upon it when they went to take out the body. Yet this learned lawyer would have you believe this is a conspiracy on the part of the people, and he says it began after the coroner's inquest. That is his statement. A conspiracy to convict innocent men! Now, look at it. I suppose he would have you believe, and he might just as well go on to charge, that the body of Dr. Cronin was put there by the conspirators on the part of the State, and that the trunk was put where it was by the same conspirators on May 5th, also that the clothes were put in the sewer in a sachel just like the one these men bought at Revell's, and not only that, but that Martin Burke knew he was going to be brought into that conspiracy when he went to Winnipeg.

He would also have you believe that Martin Burke knew after the coroner's inquest and before his name was mentioned that there would be a great conspiracy, and that they would try to implicate him, and therefore he would go to Winnipeg. I merely mention those matters, gentlemen, because you will have observed that Mr. Forrest argued them with the same force that he argued every circ.u.mstance connected with this case, and you can appreciate the sincerity of his argument. Is it to intimidate the people's representatives, so that they would not dare go further in this h.e.l.lish conspiracy? Is it for that purpose, or what does he mean by it? If it means that he thinks he can intimidate the representatives of the people in this case, he has struck the wrong blow, because it is our duty to present these matters as we get them, and we shall use our weak endeavors to do our duty.

"Mr. Forrest spoke as earnestly about that and was as much in earnest as he was when he spoke to you of the identification of Burke. He read to you an authority of a case which occurred about three hundred and fifty years ago, where the identification was contested. According to his reasoning, a man might go into your house, shoot your wife before your eyes, and then if you can identify him the moment you see him you are not to be believed. He argues that before you can be believed you must put him in a line of a hundred men, let them walk through a room one by one, and then pick him out. That he argues in the face of undisputed evidence that you saw him kill your wife, yet he would have you believe that you could not rely upon any such evidence as that for identification. The man who could be mistaken in Martin Burke's face, surely must be blind. It is a case of undisputed identification. The case Forrest refers to, is where it has been contested; where three or four witnesses swear that is the man and others swear that it is not the man; where witnesses swear that it is the horse and others swear that it is not the horse; where some witnesses swear that it is so and other witnesses swear that it is not so, but who ever heard of any man, any lawyer, any man, indeed, in his senses undertaking to talk with sincerity and urge upon twelve honest men that where five witnesses come forward and swear to the face of Martin Burke, that he is the man, and are not to be believed. Who ever heard of a second-cla.s.s lawyer, or even a police court shyster, claiming that that identification was not perfect?

Five undisputed witnesses, old man Carlson, Mother Carlson, Charles Carlson, Mrs. Charles Carlson, and Mortensen, five witnesses swear that that is the man who rented the cottage, yet that same learned lawyer is undertaking to mislead you into the belief that that identification is not to be relied upon. It is absurd.

"Well, if he will argue that Martin Burke is not the man who was there on the 4th of May, if he will argue under this evidence that Martin Burke did not rent that cottage, if he will argue that he did not move that furniture there, if he will argue that Martin Burke was not seen on the premises there, and tell me that he is in earnest, and you believe his argument, tell me when and where you would convict a man of crime, if the lawyer takes the position he did in this case. But he says the old man Carlson could not tell it was the 4th of May. How do you know? When that old man got on the stand, Forrest was yelling at the top of his voice, 'How do you know, how do you know?' while the old man yelled at the top of his voice, 'Because I know.' Yet he would have you believe he said 'How do you know?' in such a meek and mild tone that he could not hurt anyone's feelings. He is not sincere when he says that the State's Attorney and Mr. Hynes and Mr. Ingham are engaged in a conspiracy, and when he abuses the witnesses on the stand and charges them with perjury and lying, he knows in his heart that it is not true. He has made insinuations against that big-hearted Irishman sitting there, Mr. Hynes, of bullying witnesses, which he knows is untrue.

There is not a man who practices before the bar of Chicago who is more lenient with the witness than is Mr. Hynes, and there is not a man at the bar who will get more out of him than will Mr. Hynes.

You, gentlemen, heard his cross-examination of the defendants'

experts, and his examination of the witnesses who came to the stand, and I will leave it to you to decide, and not to Forrest, if he abused the witnesses on the stand. For three days this learned counsel for the defense stood before you twelve gentlemen and had no stock in trade; not a word to say in their defense beyond abusing and scandalizing the men who are trying this case, and who are seeing that the people of this great State are not misrepresented. He stood here and maliciously abused Mr. Hynes, whose only effort and desire has been that the guilty men, if they are guilty, shall be punished, and it is my duty as an officer of the State, to explain this matter to you and to hurl back the insinuations at the man who made them.

"He told you further that I had made a blunder, but he did not tell you how many blunders he had made. He told you I had made a blunder with the same force that he tells you that Mertes lied when he testified that he saw Coughlin at the Carlson cottage, and when he tells you that, his clients have not been proved guilty, notwithstanding all our witnesses' lies. Suppose what he says about Mertes and his knowing it was May 4th is proved, what difference does it make whether it was on the night of May 4th or not. But he does put this man Kunze and Dan Coughlin together at the Carlson cottage. He puts Coughlin in the cottage and Kunze driving him there, and he and his a.s.sociates gave you good evidence of their sincerity when they went to the cottage or house where this poor man lives, who can talk but very little of the English language, and told him that the Court had sent them to find out what he knew.

Yet when he comes here and gives his evidence on the witness stand they tell him he lied, but they carefully abstained from saying what they did when they went to see him. You will remember how they examined him and put words into his mouth that he did not understand, and then tried to impeach him, but I think you, gentlemen, will admit that it is proved beyond question that Coughlin went to the cottage; that he had a key to it in his pocket; that he was perfectly at home there, and that Kunze drove him there.

"Then he says old man Carlson did not see Burke there on the night of the 4th. He could not tell you why the old man did not see him, although the old man said distinctly that he did; but this we do know, that the next morning he and his wife were out in front of the cottage and they saw something on the steps which they say looked like preserves, and he said to his wife that he supposed they had been moving in the night before. You will remember that Burke had said to old Carlson that it was about time to move in.

Yes; move in. It was a bad day for Burke when he moved in, and it was a bad day for Dr. Cronin when he moved in."

"The witness said it was about time to fix up," said Mr. Forrest.

"Yes. I think he did. It was a pretty bad time to fix up," retorted the State's Attorney. "Fix up is a better word, and a nice fix they made of it. Old man Carlson tells you that the next morning he thought they had moved in. Forrest says you must not believe old Carlson, because he is an old man, and that the story about the wagon tracks he did not tell before the coroner. That is very true, but he says here that there was a wagon track, and it certainly was not necessary for the old man to commit perjury in order to prove that there was a wagon track. A great many thing's have happened which were not testified to before the coroner's inquest, but Forrest says that none of them are true. He first complains and abuses us when getting a jury because there was so much known of the case and so much published, and yet, because we did not publish the whole thing to the world and before the coroner, he abuses us before the pet.i.t jury. You can not please him, and the only way to please him is to give him evidence sufficient to acquit his clients.

"Mr. Forrest brought the trunk in here and exhibited it to you and I have a right to say a few words about that. I also desire to say a few words about the clothes and the necktie, which was cut through at the neck. They cut his pantaloons off, they cut his clothes off and did not take the time to take them off."

"I want to enter an objection to the jury's inspecting the clothes," hastily remarked Mr. Forrest, jumping to his feet.

"I don't care about the clothes," replied the State's Attorney.

"You exhibited the trunk, and I am going to speak of that, although they are all in evidence. At the same time I desire to call your especial attention to the necktie, which was not unfastened in the front but cut from behind. They had the man on his face, and when they stripped his body of the clothing they cut his necktie. Now, I want to show you this b.l.o.o.d.y trunk. They never turned up the bottom of this trunk to show you what is there. There is some of the blood which ran through the trunk. Do you see this blood in the trunk?

You do not believe that the man in that trunk died from apoplexy do you? You do not believe that he died from poison, do you? You do not believe he died a natural death. Where was the trunk found? It was found within three-quarters of a mile south of where the body was found in a catch-basin, and right by its side, within three or four blocks, were found the clothes of Cronin in the sewer.

Remember that the wagon was seen half a mile north of where the body was found with this trunk in it, which was then thought to be a carpenter's chest, and it was seen coming this way empty three blocks east of where the body was found.

"I want to call your attention to this matter because it is important. You will remember that Mr. Ingham mentioned the fact in his statement that when seen they were north of Bryn Mawyr avenue, looking for the Lake Sh.o.r.e drive in the sand, whereas, if they had honestly been looking for the Lake Sh.o.r.e drive, they would have found it south. Now then, put these three things together. You know where the body was found and the clothes were found, and between those two points this trunk was found with blood fresh in it that could be stirred by those honest Germans the next morning, with cotton batting saturated with blood, and if you put those things together, you will have reason to believe that it was the same trunk that came from the Carlson cottage. Why? Because the trunk in the Carlson cottage was just such a trunk, and it had been moved, and in the valise was found Cronin's clothes, and that valise was moved from 117 Clark street and was found in the sewer. I am going to make up a chain of evidence in this case, although I am not going all over those outside circ.u.mstances, because every circ.u.mstance which is proved in the case is not necessary for a conviction; mark that. If you get instructions from the court that there is a necessary circ.u.mstance lacking, and if you have a reasonable doubt on that material circ.u.mstance, and if there can be no conviction without that circ.u.mstance in the case, then you can not convict. But every circ.u.mstance in the case that is proved is not a material or necessary circ.u.mstance. If such circ.u.mstances as are necessary to lead your minds to believe the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt are clearly proved, that is all that is necessary for you to be satisfied upon. You need all these little outside circ.u.mstances, because they corroborate and make stronger each link in the chain of evidence. You want to remember that every point which leads in the direction of a correct conclusion to your minds should be very clear to you. As to whether they affect the material circ.u.mstances is another matter.

"I want you to remember that Burke went to Winnipeg. Forrest says that he never attempted to deceive the officers there or to go under an a.s.sumed name, but Officer McKinnon tells you that he first said his name was Cooper, and when the chief of police told him any statement he made would be used in evidence against him, then, for the first time, he said his name was Burke. Again, when Patrick O'Sullivan was requested to come to the police station and he saw a lot of men standing back of the Carlson cottage, he wanted to know what those men were doing in that cottage, clearly showing that he knew what had transpired in the cottage. Another thing I want you to remember is what Beggs said after the murder, when he said to Maurice Morris and another person in the presence of Ward, who did not take the stand, 'Cronin is all right; we know what we are talking about and you do not; you are not in the inner circle.'

Whoever said it was the organization or a part of the Clan-na-Gael which formed that inner circle? We did not, but that inner circle was made up of members of the order, men who knew what was going on. Foster says Beggs' remark was advertising the murder, but it was not. It means that he and other members who were interested in the murder of Dr. Cronin were an inner circle; that he knew where Cronin could be found, and that he believed his remains would keep there undiscovered until they could not be identified. You have another link, then, in the chain of evidence, and you have to take every circ.u.mstance in the case that leads you up to the chain, and strengthens each link in the chain that was forged by Beggs. Then he answers: 'Why didn't you call Tom Murphy?' We had him before the grand jury, and we examined his books, but the idea of calling Tom Murphy himself when his partner sits here and has sat here from the beginning of the trial as a lawyer for the defendant! As to the money in the camp, Tom Murphy did not have enough money in the funds of the organization to square his own account, let alone spending money for killing Cronin. We did not claim that he did. We do not claim that the camp paid the expenses, but we have the right to take Tom Murphy before the grand jury and investigate the camp in order to discover who were the conspirators.

"Now, gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon their defense at all. They have no defense. When we started in this case we groped in the valley and you groped in the valley. When you looked for the evidence you found it. If you are looking for an excuse to acquit those defendants, you may acquit them either on the ground that we have not stated the cause of death, or you can acquit them on the ground that you do not believe the evidence. But you are not going to do that; you are too honorable men to do so. The people of the State of Illinois have rights as well as these defendants. I would not ask you to convict the men unless you feel that the evidence justified you in doing so, but their defense, what is it? It is shorter than the defendants can cover themselves by lying upon it, and, as a covering, it is narrower than they can wrap themselves in. There is no defense. Since we were groping in the valley we have piled up a mountain of evidence, until you have the mountain peaks, which stand out so clearly, that all of you can not fail to see them, and there stands the evidence, irresistible, unimpeachable and indisputable. Gentlemen, let us see what we have got.

"Let us start in on this chain. Go into Camp 20 and see what there is there. You find that there was a committee appointed; you find that charges were made about spies; you find there was a circle of brothers banded together. Take in the 22d of February; take in the speech of Beggs; take in the letters of Spelman. There you have got a link. You start out from Camp 20 with that link. You go over to 117 South Clark Street; you go to Revell; you take the buying of the trunk and the buying of the valise and the buying of the furniture; the putting of it into 117 Clark street, and Kunze is in there as a man to throw the public off as to the cause of the occupancy. There you have a second link. The trunk, the valise, the strap and the furniture form a second link. Put that on and follow it up. These two links are undisputed and undenied. There is no dispute as to that second link; you find Martin Burke taking the furniture and putting the trunk and valise into that cottage. There is a third link undisputed; no question about it, unless you want to disbelieve the five witnesses as to the identification of Martin Burke. You go on and you find Patrick O'Sullivan contracting with Cronin, that is the fourth link. There are four links established by evidence and undisputed leading up to the murder of Dr. Cronin.

You come to Dan Coughlin; he has the horse and buggy; that is the fifth link. These five links are as solid as the rocks--as solid as iron; five undisputed links in the chain. You find, further, on Evanston road, the trunk, the body and the clothes. That is another link. There are six links that lead from Camp 20 to the grave of Dr. Cronin. We have the first link made by the Clan-na-Gael brotherhood in Camp 20; to that add Beggs' letters and his statements about the inner circle; to that add that that committee was to report to him alone; to that add everything that Beggs did and said; it is all hanging on that link. We find Burke renting the cottage and saying that his sister is going to keep house with him; we find him disappear; we find him in Winnipeg. That is another link. Then there is the P. O'Sullivan link; you find his printed card was presented to Dr. Cronin, and the man who presents it says, 'O'Sullivan wants you to go to his ice house.' That is an undisputed circ.u.mstance. All these circ.u.mstances are leading you up to the murder of Dr. Cronin. Take Dan Coughlin's statement to Dinan; take his statement that Smith, from Hanc.o.c.k, Michigan, is the man who drove the rig, the very man that Burke went to see at Hanc.o.c.k, Michigan, and who says John Ryan is his friend.

"Look at it! There never was such a chain of circ.u.mstances. The chain itself is strong, and yet all those circ.u.mstances, those little links, are as strong--so strong that they can not be broken.

And yet this lawyer will stand up here for three days and say there is not evidence enough to convict! Now, another thing that goes to add to P. O'Sullivan's link and to show that he was not honest in that contract is the testimony of this man A. J. Ford. He testifies that he made a speech in Camp 20, in which he said that there were men fraternizing with the deputies up in the Washington Literary Society in Lake View, and he gave this man O'Sullivan as his authority. There is another circ.u.mstance. Why then did O'Sullivan, if he believed that Cronin was organizing a lodge there--if he believed that that literary society was taking in men opposed to the Irish cause--why did he think Cronin was a friend of his, and why did he go and make a contract with Dr. Cronin? Now, gentlemen, I have laid down these links; you take it in Camp 20, follow it to 117 Clark street, to the cottage, to Dan Coughlin's horse and buggy, to the trunk, the body and the clothes. You come back to Camp 20 and it falls at the feet of John F. Beggs. His lawyer says that John F. Beggs is the dupe of no man. No, gentlemen; but John F. Beggs is just as guilty, if he was in this conspiracy, as Martin Burke, every bit. The learned counsel told you a story here, and it was very apt. He told you that men who had been defrauding the government and doing crooked work took a man who was on their track and put him over the brink of a precipice and swung him back and forth, and he says one of them climbed up and cut the rope, and an innocent man, innocently charged, dropped on the rocks below and was cut to pieces. The men who stood by and laughed while this was being done were just as guilty as the man who cut the rope. John F.

Beggs, if he was in this conspiracy, is just as guilty as the men who dealt the blows, every bit. Now, in such a case as that, where an innocent man was swung out over the rocks--where these men who were criminals themselves, swung a man over a cliff down to death--what would you do if you were on a jury to try such men?

"Gentlemen, I am through; I promised you I would hurry up. I do not believe that if I were to talk from now till next June I would change your opinion one way or another. If you are settled to turn these men loose, you will do it; if you believe this evidence is not sufficient to convict them, why of course you will acquit them.

But I want to call your attention to your responsibility.

Gentlemen, this is a serious matter; it has got down to business. I have been sitting here for weeks, and indisputed evidence that must lead your minds to the conclusion that Dr. Cronin was murdered, evidence that must lead to the conclusion that it was done by a conspiracy; evidence that must convince your minds that it was a cold-blooded murder, that it was planned in secret, that it was done with the coolness of those men who swung the man over the cliff--you must have come to the conclusion that if there ever was a murder case in which the extreme penalty of the law was demanded at your hands by a verdict of that kind, this is one. Remember that you are not here to acquit guilty men; you are not here to convict innocent men. Remember that we are here insisting that this evidence is so overwhelming that you, as honest men, under your oaths, can not resist this volume of proof, and that it ought to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that all five of these men are guilty of this crime."

CHAPTER XXIV.

ALL THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY--JUDGE M'CONNELL'S LUCID CHARGE--THE JURY RETIRES--A PERIOD OF ANXIETY--POPULAR EXCITEMENT AT ITS HEIGHT--DEMEANOR OF THE PRISONERS--SUSPENSE AT LAST ENDED--THE VERDICT.

Breathless silence prevailed as the State's Attorney concluded his argument. Attention was now directed to Judge McConnell. Every eye in the court-room, including that of the prisoners, was directed toward the bench. Spreading before him a bulky roll of foolscap, his Honor, after requesting the close attention of the jurors, commenced to read the final instructions. These were couched as follows:

"The jury are judges of the law as well as of the facts in this case, and if they can say upon their oaths that they know the law better than the Court itself, they have the right to do so; but, before a.s.suming so solemn a responsibility, they should be sure that they are not acting from caprice or prejudice, that they are not controlled by their will or wishes, but from a deep and confident conviction that the Court is wrong and they are right.

Before saying this upon their oaths, it is their duty to reflect whether, from their study and experience, they are better qualified to judge of the law than the Court. If under all circ.u.mstances they are prepared to say that the Court is wrong in its exposition of the law, the statute has given them that right.

"In the language of the statute, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the people, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. The unlawful killing may be perpetrated by poisoning, striking, starving, drowning, stabbing, shooting, or by any other of the various forms or means by which human nature may be overcome and death thereby occasioned.

Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature, which is manifested by external circ.u.mstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circ.u.mstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

"Whoever is guilty of murder, shall suffer the punishment of death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for his natural life, or for a term of not less than fourteen years. If the accused, or any of them, are found guilty by the jury, the jury shall fix the punishment by their verdict.

"An accessory is he who stands by and aids, abets, or a.s.sists, or who, not being present, aiding, abetting, or a.s.sisting, hath advised, encouraged, aided, or abetted the perpetration of the crime. He who thus aids, abets, a.s.sists, advises, or encourages, shall be considered as princ.i.p.al and punished accordingly. Every such accessory, when a crime is committed within or without this State by his aid or procurement in this State, may be indicted and convicted at the same time as the princ.i.p.al, or before or after his conviction, and whether the princ.i.p.al is convicted or amenable to justice or not, and punished as princ.i.p.al.

"The manner or cause of death, which is alleged in the indictment, is an essential element of the charge against the defendants, and the law requires the prosecution to establish that averment to your satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt, as it is laid in the indictment, before a conviction of the defendants, or either of them, can lawfully be had. But whether or not the manner or cause of death was as laid in the indictment may be established by circ.u.mstantial evidence, just as any other fact essential to conviction may be.

"The indictment against the defendants is no evidence of their guilt, but is merely a formal charge for the purpose of putting them upon trial. You ought to commence the investigation of this case with a presumption that the defendants, and each of them are innocent of the crime of which they are accused, and you should act upon this presumption throughout your consideration of the evidence. Unless this presumption of innocence shall have been overcome by proof of guilt so strong, credible, and conclusive as to convince your minds, beyond every reasonable doubt, that the defendants are guilty, and unless the evidence is of such a nature as to exclude every reasonable doubt of guilt, then you ought to acquit the defendants.

"But this rule of law, which clothes every person accused of crime with the presumption of innocence, and imposes on the State the burden of establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is not intended to aid any one who is in fact guilty of the crime to escape, but is a humane provision of law, intended, so far as human agencies can, to guard against the danger of any innocent person being unjustly punished.

"Circ.u.mstantial evidence in criminal cases is the proof of such facts and circ.u.mstances connected with or surrounding the commission of the crime charged as tends to show the guilt or innocence of the party charged, and if these facts and circ.u.mstances are sufficient to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt, then such evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury in finding the defendants guilty.

"The law exacts a conviction, wherever there is sufficient legal evidence to show the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and circ.u.mstantial evidence is legal evidence.

"The following rules should guide you in your use and application of the circ.u.mstances introduced in evidence: It is the duty of the jury to enter upon the consideration of each circ.u.mstance proven, having in their minds the presumption that the defendants, and each of them, are innocent, and in considering such fact or circ.u.mstance, they should apply to it the presumption of innocence, and if such fact or circ.u.mstance, when considered in connection with all the evidence in the case, can be explained consistently with the innocence of the accused, it is their duty so to explain it. No circ.u.mstance introduced in evidence on this trial can be used by you as a basis for any inference of guilt against the defendants, or either of them, unless such circ.u.mstance is first proven to your entire satisfaction, and every circ.u.mstance in the case which is not proven to your entire satisfaction should be wholly dismissed from consideration, and must not be permitted to influence you to any extent against the defendants, or either of them. Any circ.u.mstance which is essential to a conclusion of guilt against the defendants, or either of them, should be established beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty before it can be used by the jury against the defendants.

"In order to justify the inference of legal guilt from circ.u.mstantial evidence, the existence of the inculpatory facts must be absolutely incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of their guilt. If you can reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, John Kunze, it is your duty so to do, and to find said defendant, John Kunze, not guilty. If you can reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, Patrick O'Sullivan, it is your duty so to do, and to find said defendant, Patrick O'Sullivan, not guilty.

If you can reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, Martin Burke, it is your duty so to do, and to find said defendant, Martin Burke, not guilty. If you can reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, Daniel Coughlin, it is your duty so to do, and to find said defendant, Daniel Coughlin, not guilty.

"It is not sufficient for the jury to find that a resolution was adopted for the appointment of a secret committee in Camp 20 on February 8, 1889, but it must further appear to your satisfaction, beyond all reasonable doubt that such committee was in fact appointed by the defendant Beggs, and that such appointment was in pursuance or in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit the crime set out in the indictment, and you must further be satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant Beggs had knowledge of the purpose for which said committee was asked, or, if appointed, a.s.sented to its purpose subsequently, or you will not be justified in finding a partic.i.p.ation in such conspiracy on the part of the defendant Beggs by reason of the facts just recited. That the defendant Beggs was a member of the United Brotherhood and was the presiding officer of Camp 20 are not circ.u.mstances standing alone tending to establish his guilt of the crime charged in the indictment in this case. And as there is no evidence in this case that any overt act was committed by the defendant Beggs in the commission of the alleged murder charged in the indictment in this case, therefore, unless it is established that a conspiracy was entered into to commit the murder charged in said indictment, to which conspiracy the said Beggs was a party, he should be acquitted.

"When the testimony of witnesses appears to be fair, is not unreasonable or unnatural, and is consistent with itself, and where the witnesses have not, in any manner, been impeached, then you have no right under the law, to disregard the testimony of such witnesses from mere whim, caprice, or without just cause. It is the duty of the jury to consider the whole of the evidence, and to render a verdict in accordance with the weight of all the evidence in the case, and not act upon a consideration of the evidence for the prosecution or the defense alone. All the evidence must be considered.