"I referred to the unity that ought so exist among members of the organization and the members of the Irish race altogether, and the other gentleman had referred to it also. It was about the time that Le Caron had testified before the forgery commission in England and had referred to spies getting into the organization, and the other gentleman had referred to Irishmen coming to this country and the coming American citizens ought to educate their children, educate them first in the principles of American constitution, also educate them to have a love for their forefathers' home, as there was nothing in the Irish race—nothing in Irish history—that Irishmen ought to be ashamed of in America. I said it was all very well to talk of unity and I wanted to see unity among the Irish people, but there could not be unity while members of this organization would meet in back alleys and in dark corners and villify and abuse the man who had the courage to stand out and take traitorism and robbery by the throat and strangle it. I said I was raising children and educating children, and as long as God allowed me to be over them I would educate them first as Americans and also educate them that if ever there should come an opportunity to strike a blow for Ireland's freedom they should do so. I said they could not be too particular about getting members in the organization, and that I had been investigating Le Caron's record, and I said there were men in this organization that were worse than Le Caron. I said that the man who gave Le Caron his credentials to go into the convention was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron could pretend to be. I said I had found out that Le Caron's camp did not exist in two years, did not have a meeting in two years, that the junior guardian given in the directory had not been in the town of Braidwood for over two years. I stated they must have known that such a camp did not exist only on paper. That was about the substance of my remarks."
"I referred to the unity that ought so exist among members of the organization and the members of the Irish race altogether, and the other gentleman had referred to it also. It was about the time that Le Caron had testified before the forgery commission in England and had referred to spies getting into the organization, and the other gentleman had referred to Irishmen coming to this country and the coming American citizens ought to educate their children, educate them first in the principles of American constitution, also educate them to have a love for their forefathers' home, as there was nothing in the Irish race—nothing in Irish history—that Irishmen ought to be ashamed of in America. I said it was all very well to talk of unity and I wanted to see unity among the Irish people, but there could not be unity while members of this organization would meet in back alleys and in dark corners and villify and abuse the man who had the courage to stand out and take traitorism and robbery by the throat and strangle it. I said I was raising children and educating children, and as long as God allowed me to be over them I would educate them first as Americans and also educate them that if ever there should come an opportunity to strike a blow for Ireland's freedom they should do so. I said they could not be too particular about getting members in the organization, and that I had been investigating Le Caron's record, and I said there were men in this organization that were worse than Le Caron. I said that the man who gave Le Caron his credentials to go into the convention was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron could pretend to be. I said I had found out that Le Caron's camp did not exist in two years, did not have a meeting in two years, that the junior guardian given in the directory had not been in the town of Braidwood for over two years. I stated they must have known that such a camp did not exist only on paper. That was about the substance of my remarks."
A roar of applause, which the bailiffs vainly endeavored to suppress, came from the audience, as McGarry concluded.
"Did John F. Beggs make a speech in reply to yours" asked the State's Attorney."Yes" was the reply. "Beggs said that the visiting members should not be coming in there violating the hospitality of that camp, and that it would have to be stopped. He said that it was not right; that it was cowardly. I wanted to interrupt him, butthe presiding officer, the chairman at the time, would not let me. I wanted to interrupt him when he used the word cowardly. He said they came in there attacking Alexander Sullivan, and it was cowardly to attack any one behind his back. Why did they not say so to his face if they had anything to say? He said Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in the camp, and he slapped his breast, and said, "I am one of them." That was about all that passed. I wanted to get the floor to reply to him, and I did get the floor afterward. I said the gentleman had said it was cowardly. I wanted him to understand that I was no coward; that I would tell Alexander Sullivan, either there or anywhere else, what my opinion of him was, and every man who knew me knew what that was. I said, 'Why did you mention Alexander Sullivan's name? I have not mentioned it. I have not heard it mentioned here till the senior guardian of this camp mentioned it here.' I stated and I repeated that the man who gave Le Caron his credentials was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron pretended to be. That was all I said, and I should not have mentioned his name only it was brought out. I should say, that when Beggs said that Alexander Sullivan had stout friends in this camp and that he was one of them, he also said that he (Beggs) was for union and unity among the Irish people if it took war to make it."
"Did John F. Beggs make a speech in reply to yours" asked the State's Attorney.
"Yes" was the reply. "Beggs said that the visiting members should not be coming in there violating the hospitality of that camp, and that it would have to be stopped. He said that it was not right; that it was cowardly. I wanted to interrupt him, butthe presiding officer, the chairman at the time, would not let me. I wanted to interrupt him when he used the word cowardly. He said they came in there attacking Alexander Sullivan, and it was cowardly to attack any one behind his back. Why did they not say so to his face if they had anything to say? He said Alexander Sullivan had strong friends in the camp, and he slapped his breast, and said, "I am one of them." That was about all that passed. I wanted to get the floor to reply to him, and I did get the floor afterward. I said the gentleman had said it was cowardly. I wanted him to understand that I was no coward; that I would tell Alexander Sullivan, either there or anywhere else, what my opinion of him was, and every man who knew me knew what that was. I said, 'Why did you mention Alexander Sullivan's name? I have not mentioned it. I have not heard it mentioned here till the senior guardian of this camp mentioned it here.' I stated and I repeated that the man who gave Le Caron his credentials was a greater scoundrel than ever Le Caron pretended to be. That was all I said, and I should not have mentioned his name only it was brought out. I should say, that when Beggs said that Alexander Sullivan had stout friends in this camp and that he was one of them, he also said that he (Beggs) was for union and unity among the Irish people if it took war to make it."
The witness went on to tell how, when he heard that Dr. Cronin was missing, he had gone to O'Sullivan's house, and, in the presence of several witnesses, told him that his association with the mystery looked suspicious. One of the men suggested that perhaps the Ancient Order of Deputies had made away with the missing man, but McGarry replied that the crime was much nearer home, and that it would be found that his own race had killed him. When the reference was made to the Deputies, McGarry, suddenly turning his head, had seen O'Sullivan make a grimace as a sort of admonitionto the other man to say nothing more. In concluding his testimony the witness told how Dr. Cronin, some time before his death, had been called to attend the supposed victim of a serious accident. He went up a flight of stairs, but upon entering the room, did not like the appearance of the man in the bed and with the remark, "My God, did you bring me here to murder me," went down the stairs several steps at a time.
Additional evidence was submitted to prove that neither Coughlin nor Beggs had entertained any kindly feeling toward the physician in his lifetime, but that on the contrary, they hated him with all the intensity of their strong natures. It was shown, for instance, that in saloons on the North Side of the city, not only Beggs and Coughlin, but also O'Sullivan, had repeatedly denounced Dr. Cronin in the most vituperative language, and that Coughlin in particular had remarked little more than a month before the murder that, "a prominent North Side Catholic would be done up if he could not keep his mouth shut." The attempt was made on cross-examination to show that the man to whom this language had reference, was John F. Finerty, the noted Irish orator and editor, but on this questionthe witnesses disagreed. As a matter of fact Mr. Finerty lived on the south side of the city. From this point the purchase of the furniture and trunk for the Clark Street flat, and which was afterward removed to the Carlson cottage, was taken up. Hatfield, the salesman, repeated the testimony which he had given before the coroner's jury. The trunk itself, with the stains of Dr. Cronin's blood plainly visible on the outside was offered in evidence. So was the batting saturated with the life blood of the physician, and which was found in its interior when it was first discovered in the Lake View ditch. Cross-examination of the salesman failed to shake his opinion that the goods found in the cottage were those he had sold to the much-wanted "Simonds." Branching off, the prosecution took up the threats that had been made against the physician at different times prior to his murder, and "Major" Sampson, an individual not unknown in the criminal history of Chicago, told how he had been approached by Coughlin, who had asked him to meet Dr. Cronin some night and give him an "infernal good licking." Coughlin had also suggested that he might take another man with him in order that the job might be the more complete. Instead of complying with the request however, Sampson had gone to Dr. Cronin andacquainted him with the fact that he was in peril. The renting of the cottage was gone into detail. Mrs. Carlson told her story, and when she had finished, Mr. Mills turning his face toward the line of prisoners, asked the witness if she could recognize in the great audience before her, the face of Frank Williams. The silence was oppressive as the woman's eyes rested upon the prisoners.
"Do you see the man?" asked Mr. Mills, in an emphatic tone.
"Yes sir," replied the witness.
"Where is he?"
Mrs. Carlson leveled the index finger of her gloved hand at Burke. The latter chewed viciously at his tobacco and his eyes rolled wildly. The other prisoners did not dare to look at their companion. The witness went on to tell why it was certain that she had made no mistake in her identification. She knew Burke by his restless eyes, by his mouth, by the general contour of his face. Burke turned pale as the terrible ordeal proceeded. Dramatic in the extreme was the identification of Burke by old man Carlson. When asked to pick out Frank Williams from the hundred of faces that were turned toward him, he glanced aboutearnestly, but did not utter a word. The request was repeated, and again the old man scanned the audience without discovering the face. Burke, his countenance rigid with determination, sat with his frightened eyes riveted upon the witness. Carlson was asked to leave his chair and walk among the people below him. Taking his soft hat in his hand, he walked slowly past the jurors and the lawyers. His eyes were fastened upon the prisoners. He began with Beggs. Then his gaze passed from Coughlin to O'Sullivan and thence to Burke. The two men were but a few feet apart. With a grunt of satisfaction Carlson shook his old hat at the pale-faced prisoner.
"Is he the Frank Williams you saw?" asked Mr. Mills.
"Yes, sir," was the emphatic reply, and the painful silence which had prevailed in the court-room was broken by a prolonged buzz.
It was Coughlin's turn to turn pale when John C. Garrity was placed upon the stand. This witness told how on one occasion Coughlin had asked him if Sampson could be got to do a piece of work. When asked what it was, he replied that he wanted to have a certain fellow "slugged." Garrity asked what he wanted done to him, and Coughlin replied that he wanted a man to get a club and break his nose and knock his teeth out or disfigure him for life. Mortensen, the expressman,forged another link in the evidence by positively identifying Burke as the man who had hired him to cart the furniture to the cottage. When the witness pointed directly at Burke, the latter showed more anger than at any time during the trial. His face was flushed, his jaws set, and he glared savagely at the Swede. Edward Spelman, of Peoria, Illinois, the district officer of the Clan-na-gael, was another witness, but his memory was exceedingly treacherous. In fact, he could not remember any of the circumstances to which he had testified before the Grand Jury, and it turned out that, in the interval, he had visited the office of, and conferred with, Alexander Sullivan. The only fact of importance to which he testified was that he had seen Coughlin and Kunze together in Peoria, and that they appeared to be very intimate. The witness admitted that the following correspondence had passed between himself and Beggs:
"Chicago, Feb. 16, 1889."My Dear Sir and Brother: I am directed to call your attention to the following subjects: First, it is charged that the S. G. of the Columbus Club (Dr. Cronin's camp) at a recent meeting read to the assembled members the proceedings of the Trial Committee. Second, I am directed to enter the protest of Camp No. 20 against the D.'s in Chicago electing or initiating men until their names are presented to D. No. 20 and the other D.'s for their consideration. The old rule by communication has become a dead letter since the formation of the Central Council, and I am informed that said council has not held a legal meeting since its formation. Gooddiscipline calls for an investigation of the foregoing, which I feel you will attend to. Fraternally yours,"Don't forget our reunion February, 22.""J. F. Beggs, S. G., D. 20.""Peoria, Ill., Feb. 17, 1889."Friend Beggs: Yours of yesterday to hand and contents carefully noted. Will you kindly refer me to that section of our law where I am empowered to inflict a penalty on an S. G. for disclosing the proceedings of a Trial Committee? Under the constitution I called the S. G. and J. G. together [meaning Senior Guardian and Junior Guardian] for the purpose of forming a council. If they fail to perform their duty I would like to know how I can remedy the evil you complain of. While I admit that no person should be admitted in Chicago unless his proposition should come before the council or the D.'s in your city, on accepting the position of the D. O. [District Officer], I felt that I should be able in my own way to effect a reconciliation of our people in Chicago. But I must confess to you that I am greatly disappointed. My position is this: That if any person who is a member should violate the law, he should be tried as provided by our constitution. What is the fact? Members who know a wrong go around the street and go from one D. to another and talk about such an offense. Then they report, and the D. O. is a figure head. I will take no notice of any complaint unless made to me, and if I have authority under our laws, you may depend I will be on hand. I thank you for your kindness, and discipline is our only safeguard. If you see where I can act, I am at your command. My term of office will expire at this month, and God knows I am glad. I am disgusted with the conduct of men who think they should lead the Irish people. But I think it is dangerous for decent men to associate with such scamps. Thank God, proxies no longer prevail."Fraternally yours,D. O. 16.""Chicago, Feb. 18, 1889."Dear Sir and Brother: Yours of the 17th received. I have not the constitution before me, and therefore can not point out the section that would cover the matter complained of; nor am I prepared to say that the act mentioned was a violation of any written law; but that it was very unwise, and such conduct as is prejudicial to the good of the order, no man in his right senses will deny. It is just such acts that keep us continually in hot water. Why, in God'sname, if men are sincere, will they insist upon opening old sores? The majority of our men believe the parties charged to be innocent of any criminal wrong, and to have the charges made continually that they are guilty, creates a bitterness and ill feeling, and the man or men who continue to bring the charges are not the friends of Irish unity. What earthly good is done in continuing the old fight. What is the reason for it? I confess I can give no answer. If we are true men, as we profess, we will rather conciliate than keep up a war which can only lead to further disunion. The rank and file are sincere. They want peace, and the time is not far distant when they will have it, even if it has to come to war. I am anxious for a better understanding among our people, and will do anything in my power to obtain unity. The matter I wrote of, I would let pass if I could, but I was ordered to notice it. Personally I think it better not to notice such things, but I am only one. The men who are the power will in time realize the motives of those who are continually breeding disorder in their ranks, and a day of punishment will come. I am very much discouraged at the present outlook, but hope no trouble will result. Fraternally yours,J. F. Beggs."
"Chicago, Feb. 16, 1889.
"My Dear Sir and Brother: I am directed to call your attention to the following subjects: First, it is charged that the S. G. of the Columbus Club (Dr. Cronin's camp) at a recent meeting read to the assembled members the proceedings of the Trial Committee. Second, I am directed to enter the protest of Camp No. 20 against the D.'s in Chicago electing or initiating men until their names are presented to D. No. 20 and the other D.'s for their consideration. The old rule by communication has become a dead letter since the formation of the Central Council, and I am informed that said council has not held a legal meeting since its formation. Gooddiscipline calls for an investigation of the foregoing, which I feel you will attend to. Fraternally yours,
"Don't forget our reunion February, 22."
"J. F. Beggs, S. G., D. 20."
"Peoria, Ill., Feb. 17, 1889.
"Friend Beggs: Yours of yesterday to hand and contents carefully noted. Will you kindly refer me to that section of our law where I am empowered to inflict a penalty on an S. G. for disclosing the proceedings of a Trial Committee? Under the constitution I called the S. G. and J. G. together [meaning Senior Guardian and Junior Guardian] for the purpose of forming a council. If they fail to perform their duty I would like to know how I can remedy the evil you complain of. While I admit that no person should be admitted in Chicago unless his proposition should come before the council or the D.'s in your city, on accepting the position of the D. O. [District Officer], I felt that I should be able in my own way to effect a reconciliation of our people in Chicago. But I must confess to you that I am greatly disappointed. My position is this: That if any person who is a member should violate the law, he should be tried as provided by our constitution. What is the fact? Members who know a wrong go around the street and go from one D. to another and talk about such an offense. Then they report, and the D. O. is a figure head. I will take no notice of any complaint unless made to me, and if I have authority under our laws, you may depend I will be on hand. I thank you for your kindness, and discipline is our only safeguard. If you see where I can act, I am at your command. My term of office will expire at this month, and God knows I am glad. I am disgusted with the conduct of men who think they should lead the Irish people. But I think it is dangerous for decent men to associate with such scamps. Thank God, proxies no longer prevail.
"Fraternally yours,D. O. 16."
"Chicago, Feb. 18, 1889.
"Dear Sir and Brother: Yours of the 17th received. I have not the constitution before me, and therefore can not point out the section that would cover the matter complained of; nor am I prepared to say that the act mentioned was a violation of any written law; but that it was very unwise, and such conduct as is prejudicial to the good of the order, no man in his right senses will deny. It is just such acts that keep us continually in hot water. Why, in God'sname, if men are sincere, will they insist upon opening old sores? The majority of our men believe the parties charged to be innocent of any criminal wrong, and to have the charges made continually that they are guilty, creates a bitterness and ill feeling, and the man or men who continue to bring the charges are not the friends of Irish unity. What earthly good is done in continuing the old fight. What is the reason for it? I confess I can give no answer. If we are true men, as we profess, we will rather conciliate than keep up a war which can only lead to further disunion. The rank and file are sincere. They want peace, and the time is not far distant when they will have it, even if it has to come to war. I am anxious for a better understanding among our people, and will do anything in my power to obtain unity. The matter I wrote of, I would let pass if I could, but I was ordered to notice it. Personally I think it better not to notice such things, but I am only one. The men who are the power will in time realize the motives of those who are continually breeding disorder in their ranks, and a day of punishment will come. I am very much discouraged at the present outlook, but hope no trouble will result. Fraternally yours,J. F. Beggs."
Of testimony against O'Sullivan, there was an abundance. Justice Mahoney told of being present when the contract for professional services was made between the iceman and the physician, and Mrs. Addie J. Farrar testified that the iceman had said to her, after the disappearance, that Dr. Cronin was a British spy, and that if he had given away any of the secrets of the secret organization he ought to have been killed. Editor R. T. Stanton, of the Lake ViewRecord, showed that the particular card of O'Sullivan's that had been used to entice Dr. Cronin from his home had been printed for and delivered to the iceman two days before themurder. The first evidence connecting Kunze with the murderers, or their different places of rendezvous, was given by Willie James, a sixteen-year old stenographer, who swore that he had seen Kunze wash his feet at the window of the Clark street flat in the month of March, while Mertes, the milkman, positively identified the little German as the man who had driven a big broad-shouldered man to the Carlson cottage on the night of the murder, and likewise identified Coughlin as the man he had seen run up the steps of the slaughter-house and disappear behind the front door. Kunze rocked to and fro with fury during this testimony, and glared wickedly at the witness. Coughlin's gaze never left his accuser, but his face flushed and his deep set eyes blazed.
From a medical point of view, the testimony of Microscopists Tolman and Belfield, and Chemist Haines, of the Rush Medical College was exceedingly interesting. Stains from the floor of the Carlson cottage, the hair found clinging to the trunk purchased by Simonds, the hair cut from the head of the murdered man, the single thread of hair discovered on cake of soap in the kitchen of the cottage, and fresh and dried blood from the trunk itself, were the articles on which theexperts had experimented. The chemist had been requested to determine whether the reddish stains were those of blood, while the task of determining the probable origin of the blood and the relation of one hair to the other was assigned to the microscopists. The evidence of all three experts was conclusive. Chemist Haines had subjected the stained chips from the floor of the cottage to four experiments, three of a chemical nature and the fourth with a microscope, and the result furnished indubitable proof that the stains were those of blood, while Microscopist Tolman, by other tests, was equally well satisfied that the blood had come from a human body. Additional tests had been made on a strand of hair found on the cake of soap, and which was lighter in color in some portions than in others, while Dr. Cronin's hair was brown. The fact that the single strand appeared light in color to the naked eye seemed to indicate that it could not have come from Dr. Cronin's head, but it was demonstrated by the experts that hairs placed on soap or other alkaline substances became bleached in a manner similar to the color of the single strand. This evidence was of vital importance as it linked the hair found in the trunk with the hair cut from Dr. Cronin's head, and went far toward proving that one of the murderers had washed his hands with the soapafter the diabolical work in the parlor had been done.
A surprise was in store for the defense at this juncture of the trial, in the form of several witnesses whose identity and testimony had not before been made public. One of these, William Niemann, who kept a saloon a block and a half south of the Carlson cottage, swore that on the night of May 4th, between ten and eleven o'clock, O'Sullivan, the iceman, with two companions, one of whom strongly resembled Coughlin and the other Kunze, visited his place and drank several glasses of wine. O'Sullivan paid the bill, and the three men engaged in an earnest conversation that lasted some time, although they spoke so low that the drift of what they were saying could not be learned by the saloon-keeper. This evidence demolished the claim that O'Sullivan was in bed all night on the night of the murder, and although Niemann was rigidly cross-examined he held to his story without the slightest variation.
But it remained for a poor washerwoman, who was searching for her drunken husband, to furnish the final link in the chain and discover the crowning evidence against some of the men who were on trial. She testified on November 12th,and her story was one of the most dramatic and sensational of the trial. Paulina Hoertel was her name, and she was a little German woman, poorly but neatly dressed, with a thin, pinched face, but with considerably more intelligence than is usually found among people in her station of life. She wept bitterly at times while telling her story. For several years, owing to the drunken habits of her husband, her life had been full of trouble. At one time he visited a saloon near the Carlson cottage with nearly five hundred dollars in his pockets, fell into a drunken stupor, and remained in the place four days and nights. When his wife, after considerable searching, finally discovered his whereabouts, the saloon-keeper first attempted to shoot her, and then secured her arrest on a charge of disorderly conduct.
From a long recital of her domestic misery, Mrs. Hoertel went on to tell, how on the night of the murder she had started out to find her husband, who, as usual, was away from home. After going some distance her heart failed her, and she started to return. As she entered North Ashland avenue from Cornelia street, she saw a white horse attached to a top-buggy, coming toward her at a lively pace from the direction of the city. There were two men in the vehicle, and the horse was brought to a full stop immediately in front of the Carlson cottage. A tallman, with a black satchel or box in his left hand, jumped from the vehicle, and, after reaching out his arm toward the buggy as if to take something, crossed over the sidewalk toward the steps. Mrs. Hoertel was at this time on the same side of the street and walking in the direction of the cottage. As soon as the man had gotten out of the vehicle, his companion lashed the white horse into a gallop, and started back toward the town. The tall man walked briskly up the long flight of stairs, and, upon reaching the threshold of the cottage, the door was opened by somebody within. A bright light was burning in the front room of the building, and when the door was opened its reflection was seen on the steps. Mrs. Hoertel reached the front of the cottage just as the door closed. An instant later she heard some one cry in a loud voice, "Oh, God!" Then there was a noise that sounded like a blow, followed by a heavy fall, and again the now frightened woman heard the exclamation, "Jesus!"
The woman stood still for an instant. The light was still shining through the slats of the tightly-drawn blinds, but all was as still as the grave, and, thinking that the sounds which she had heard were only those of an ordinary quarrel, she resumed the journey toward her home. A block distant, between the Carlson cottage and the littlebuilding in the rear where the Carlsons lived, she saw in the starlight the outlines of a man who was evidently on watch. Upon reaching her home she could not open the doors, her husband having changed the locks in her absence, and she was compelled to sit all night on her door-step. It was not until three days later that she was able to obtain access to her home.
Told through an interpreter, for the woman's efforts to make her broken English understood failed almost from the start, this story created a painful impression in the court-room. Every one within hearing recognized its vital interest. The white horse that had carried the physician away from his house had been traced to the door of the Carlson cottage, and the exclamation, "Oh, God!" must have been wrung from the Doctor the instant he entered the door and saw that a trap had been set for him. But it was too late to retreat, and, with a last cry of "Jesus," he had fallen beneath the blow of one of his assassins, with the name of his Saviour upon his lips.
"I heard the far-away cry of Jesus," was the way in which the interpreter made a literal translation of the statement, and every eye was turned on the prisoners. Burke's mouth opened, his face turned scarlet and his eyes rolled wildly around the court-room. Coughlin's jaws were set tightly, and he glared savagely at the witness. Beggs,O'Sullivan and Kunze, however, sat like stoics, and did not move a muscle or change a shade in color. Judge Wing, who was chosen to cross-examine the witness, occupied over an hour in an effort to confuse her as to dates and assail her as to character, but the replies were prompt and unanswerable, and when she left the stand not a word of her story had been shaken.
By this time the State had almost exhausted its list of witnesses. John E. McKennon, of the police department of Winnipeg, told about the arrest of Burke at that place,COONEY, "THE FOX."and Henry Plainskef testified that on the morning after Dr. Cronin's murder, Burke and another man whom he recognized from a photograph as Cooney, entered a store on Clark street and purchased a cheap white shirt and two collars. Burke, he said, kept his coat buttoned closely about his throat, and acted in a suspicious manner. Gus Klahre testified that on May 6th Burke had brought to him to be soldered a galvanized iron box fourteen by twenty-six inches, and weighingabout forty pounds. He was very particular that the contents of the box should not be seen, and while the work was being done, talked freely about Dr. Cronin's disappearance, saying that he was a British spy and deserved to be killed. The clothing, instrument case and other articles found in the Lake View sewer were exhibited to the jury and identified by several witnesses. As a finale to its case, the State endeavored to introduce the inside history of the Clan-na-gael, with a view of showing Coughlin's bitter hatred for Dr. Cronin, and ex-Police Officer Daniel Brown was called to testify on this point. Strenuous objections, however, were offered by the defense, and argument on the question extended over an entire afternoon. The State's Attorney insisted upon his right to show that four years before, Alexander Sullivan, who was on the Executive Committee at that time, and was charged with the fraudulent appropriation of funds, prosecuted Cronin, that Coughlin was on the trial committee, that Dr. Cronin was tried for reading a circular that reflected on Sullivan's character, and that notwithstanding this, four years later, Beggs stood up in his camp and defended Sullivan. To this Mr. Forrest responded that the defense had no vindication to offer for the triangle, nor any attack to make on it. They did ask, however, that Coughlin andhis fellow-prisoners be tried for their own sins, and not for those of Alexander Sullivan. So far as counsel for the defendants were concerned they were willing to say "to perdition with Alexander Sullivan." They were not responsible for his acts, they did not appear there to apologize for him, but they did protest most solemnly as American citizens against the names of their clients being connected with that of Sullivan, and against the prejudice that existed against the latter being visited on the defenseless heads of the poor men who were on trial for their lives.
At the conclusion of the arguments, the evidence was ruled out by the court. The case for the State was practically closed on November 13th, and an adjournment was taken until the 16th, when one more witness was called for the prosecution. This was James Clancey, a staff correspondent for the New York Herald. His testimony was to the effect that he had called upon iceman O'Sullivan twice upon the day when Dr. Cronin's body was discovered and urged him to go and identify it. The iceman, however, had refused to do so, being greatly agitated and making several contradictory statements which to the witness, seemed additional evidence of guilt. On cross-examination it was developed that Mr. Clancey had been a worker in the causeof Irish liberty in years gone by, that he had been sentenced to penal servitude for life, for attempting to shoot two policemen who were about to arrest him for alleged participation in revolutionary schemes, and that he had been pardoned at the expiration of ten years through the intervention of several members of Parliament. When Mr. Clancey left the stand at noon on Saturday of November 16th, the formal announcement was made:
"We rest the case for the State."
JUDGE S. P. M'CONNELL.
THE DEFENSE TAKES ITS TURN—UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO EXCLUDE THE BULK OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN FOR THE STATE—ALIBIS FOR THE PRISONERS AND THE WHITE HORSE—A GENERAL DENIAL OF COMPLICITY IN THE TRAGEDY—REBUTTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
THE DEFENSE TAKES ITS TURN—UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO EXCLUDE THE BULK OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN FOR THE STATE—ALIBIS FOR THE PRISONERS AND THE WHITE HORSE—A GENERAL DENIAL OF COMPLICITY IN THE TRAGEDY—REBUTTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Only the usual recess for lunch intervened between the closing of the case for the State and the opening of that for the defense. Mr. Forrest led off with some forty motions to exclude the testimony of as many witnesses who had been called by the prosecution, but each motion was overruled, and the usual exception taken. The first witness for the defense, Frederick J. Squibb, a stenographer, was examined with a view of showing that the evidence of several of the preceding witnesses differed materially from that which they had given at the coroner's inquest. Ex-Police Captain Michael J. Schaack, testified that Mrs. Conklin had absolutely failed to identify the white horse and buggy, and his testimony was corroborated in some parts by Lieutenant ofPolice P. G. Koch. The story of Neimann, the saloon-keeper, that O'Sullivan, Coughlin and Kunze were in his place drinking sherry wine late on the night of the murder was impeached by Jeremiah and James Hyland, cousins, both of whom swore that they visited O'Sullivan at his house on the night of Sunday, May 5th, took supper with him, remained several hours and then went over in a body to Neimann's saloon. The two men were placed alongside of Coughlin and Kunze for purposes of comparison, but few, if any, points of resemblance were to be seen between them. An alibi for Coughlin was the next thing in order, and ex-Detective Michael Whalen laid the foundation for it by swearing that he saw his brother detective at the Chicago avenue station from half-past seven until midnight on the night of the murder.
John Stift, a police officer, corroborated Whalen, but on cross-examination he destroyed the entire value of his testimony by stating that on the morning of May 5th he was put to work by Captain Schaack on the disappearance of the physician, while, as a matter of record the disappearance was not reported to the police until nearly twelve hours later in the day. Peter Koch was called in behalf of Kunze, with a view of showing that the association of the little German with Coughlin was due to the fact that bothwere working on a distillery explosion case. On the following day William Mulcahey, one of O'Sullivan's employes, testified that the iceman had told him of the contract with Dr. Cronin, and also declared that he was out delivering ice with O'Sullivan until after six o'clock on the night of the murder, that they all had supper together and that he and O'Sullivan slept together that night, both retiring late. Mulcahey positively swore that the iceman did not leave the house during the night. His testimony was corroborated by Thomas Whalen, O'Sullivan's cousin, who had lived with him for six years, and by James Knight, James Menahan and Patrick Brennan, all of whom were employed by O'Sullivan at the time of the murder. Robert Boyington, a carpenter, who boarded at the O'Sullivan residence, told the same story. Miss Kate McCormick, sister of Mrs. Thomas Whalen, as well as the latter, were examined on the same line, and both insisted, despite the sharpest kind of cross-examination, that the iceman did not leave the house on the fatal night. The alibi for Martin Burke was started by Mat. Danahy, who testified that the defendant was at his house from six to nine o'clock on the night of May 4th, and that he shook dice with him for a long time. He added that Burke and Cooney came to his saloon on the following morning (Sunday), and remaineduntil late in the evening, during which time they engaged in several games of "cut-throat" euchre.
Other witnesses testified regarding seeing Burke in the saloon. Ex-Congressman John F. Finerty, M. J. Keane, John Dwyer and Matthew Brady all gave evidence to the effect that there was no inner circle in the Clan-na-Gael. Justice David J. Lyon testified that on the 22d of February in company with Beggs he called on Benjamin Harrison, at that time the President elect of the United States, at the latter's residence in Indianapolis, in reference to the procurement of an appointment for a friend to the office of sub-treasurer at Chicago. Witnesses were also called with a view of showing that the committee appointed by Beggs was a perfectly innocent one, and had no relation whatever to Dr. Cronin. An alibi for Dinan's white horse was furnished by Louis Budenbender, who had been brought all the way from Hoboken, N. J., to testify. His story was, that he was standing nearly opposite the Conklin residence on the night of May 4th, that he saw the buggy drive up and Dr. Cronin driven away; and that, having since seen Dinan's white horse, he was certain that it was not the same animal. The horse in the buggy according to Budenbender was a dark speckled gray with white legs and very different in appearance to Dinan's nag. Prof.Marshall D. Ewell, Dr. Harold H. Moyer and Prof. Lester Curtis were called to rebut the expert testimony for the State. Mrs. Hoertel was also recalled in behalf of the defense, with a view of showing that she had made a mistake in the dates upon which she had seen the men enter the Carlson cottage, and August S. Saltzman, a German, was positive that it was after the 8th of May when the two locks were changed on the doors of the Hoertel residence. Additional expert testimony was given by Dr. Edmond Andrews, who said that the wounds on the body of Dr. Cronin when it was found, were not necessarily fatal. Police Officer Stift, on being recalled, admitted that he had made a mistake in his previous testimony, and that it was on Monday instead of on Sunday that the orders concerning the search for the missing physician had been issued.
The case for the defense was practically closed on November 25th. Four additional witnesses were introduced, to support the previous testimony to the effect that O'Sullivan was at home on the night of the murder, and Mertes, the milkman was recalled with a view of showing that the version of what he saw on the night of May 4th in front of the Carlson cottage, as given on the stand, was materially different from the story he had told officersRohan and Crowe two days after the body was found. In behalf of Kunze, J. W. Fralick, a master painter, swore that the defendant worked for him under the name of John Krogel, from April 20th to June 20th, and that on May 4th he was doing work for him in a house on 16th Street until after half past five o'clock in the evening. No evidence was submitted however, tending to show Kunze's whereabouts after that hour. Several witnesses were called to impeach the statement of old man Carlson, that when Burke rented the cottage on March 20th he went directly over to O'Sullivan's house and reported his success to the iceman. According to their statements, O'Sullivan was engaged that day in unloading several car-loads of ice at the freight depot of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway some miles away.
The rebuttal evidence for the prosecution was now in order. Dr. Patrick Curran was called for the purpose of showing that James Lyman, a veteran member of Camp 20, had publicly stated that Dr. Cronin's death had been ordered by the executive, but the defense protested so emphatically against the admission of this testimony that Judge McConnell, after mature deliberation, decided that it was not admissible. BaileyDawson, the veteran Chicago politician, whom Beggs claimed to have met in the rotunda of the Grand Pacific Hotel on the night of May 4th, was put on the stand and swore he was a patient in the Emergency Hospital on that date, and that he did not reach the Grand Pacific Hotel until May 11th, when he was introduced to Beggs by a mutual friend. This testimony was corroborated by Col. A. C. Babcock. The story told by the Hylands was torn to pieces by A. B. Anderson, a liveryman, from whose evidence appeared that on the night they claimed to have visited Niemann's saloon in company with O'Sullivan, the place was crowded with patrons. Niemann also stated that so far as he could remember, he had never seen the Hylands in his place. Numerous witnesses swore that Salzman, who had been introduced by the defense to impeach Mrs. Hoertel, had a bad reputation for truth and veracity, was utterly unworthy of belief, and had no regard whatever for the sanctity of the oath. Numerous other witnesses were introduced to disprove various statements that were made in behalf of the prisoners.
One more sensation was to be added to the many startling developments of the trial, in its last stages. There was no session of court on November27th, in order that the attorneys for the State might be afforded an opportunity to arrange the order of their arguments, and, as the following day, Thursday, was the day of National Thanksgiving, the case went over until Friday morning, November 29th.FLYNN.On the afternoon of Thursday, Barney Flynn, a detective in the employ of the city, and connected with the Chicago Avenue Station, went to Chief Hubbard with a remarkable story. Flynn was the man who arrested Coughlin, after the latter had concluded his interview with Chief of Police Hubbard. He took him to the armory police station and searched him in the presence of Captain Bartram. Among the other things he found in Coughlin's pockets were two pocket-knives and a revolver. These Flynn carried with him to the central station and placed in his box for safe keeping, and, when, a few months later, he was transferred to the Chicago Avenue Station, he placed them in a vault which he rented in the Fidelity Bank. There they had remained undisturbed ever since. WhenChief Hubbard heard this story, he ordered the knives to be produced without delay. The attorneys for the State were advised of the facts, and T. T. Conklin, who was sent for, unhesitatingly declared that both knives had been the property of Dr. Cronin. Flynn was placed upon the stand after the noon recess on the following day and told his story.
Mr. Conklin followed the detective, and the knives were handed to him by Judge Longenecker. He glanced at the larger one, which was medium sized and with a pearl handle, and unhesitatingly declared that he himself had given it to Dr. Cronin about a year before. "I ought to know it," said the witness, emphatically, "for I carried it myself for nearly two years."
The smaller knife, a little bone handled affair, of rather a peculiar shape, was also identified by Mr. Conklin, as one he had found on the street about nine months before. He had carried it home and placed it on the mantle, where Dr. Cronin had found it and appropriated it to his own uses. Both of these knives the physician had been in the habit of carrying in the right-hand pocket of his vest.
The cross-examination by Mr. Forrest was extremely light, the witness being simply asked whether the knives were not of a very ordinary pattern. The witness admitted that he wouldnot swear they were the identical knives that Dr. Cronin had carried,THE KNIVES.because there were many like them in the market, but he was positive that they resembled them as closely as they could do even to the number of the blades. On re-examination by the State's Attorney, Conklin said that no such knives were found at his house after Dr. Cronin had disappeared. Prior to this, at the morning session of court, Barnard F. Carberry, a bright looking young fellow, gave evidence concerning a visit he had made to Matt Danahy's saloon on the evening of May 4th, which appeared to put an end to the last vestige of Martin Burke's alibi. Lawyer Forrest was then given another inning, and introduced a long string of witnesses to counteract the evidence which the State had submitted on rebuttal.
Owing to the fact that the discovery of the knives had taken the defense somewhat by surprise, it was permitted to sandwich its rebuttaltestimony in between the speeches. On December 2d August Loewenstein, a brother of Jacob Loewenstein, Coughlin's former partner in the detective business, testified that he had sold a pair of pants to Coughlin on the 27th of April, one week before the disappearance of Dr. Cronin. The garment had to be altered, and while Coughlin was waiting for them, he took out of the pockets of the old ones some keys and two knives which he laid upon a chair. Witness particularly recollected these knives because he had asked Coughlin to give him one of them, and he was positive that the two knives which had been identified by Mr. Conklin were the same he had seen in Coughlin's possession. Jacob Loewenstein also swore, with emphasis, that he had seen Coughlin's knives on scores of occasions when he was traveling beats with him, and was more than positive that those which had been placed in evidence were the identical ones his partner had owned for a long period. One of them in particular he could tell by the way it was ground, from the color of the handle and the general appearance. The point, he said, showed it had been ground on the sandstone at the station, and, as a matter of fact, he had seen Coughlin grind it that way when he was standing by and talking to him. This evidence was not materially shaken on cross-examination.
State's Attorney Longenecker opened his address on Friday, November 29th, and spoke for four hours. He resumed on Saturday, November 30th, and finally finished at three o'clock on the same day. Judge Wing then commenced his appeal for Daniel Coughlin, speaking two hours on Saturday, six hours on Monday, December 2d, and about one hour on Tuesday, December 3d. George Ingham followed on behalf of the State, speaking continuously through the day until five o'clock, when he closed. Daniel Donahoe, on behalf of O'Sullivan and Kunze, spoke from tena. m.to fivep. m.on Wednesday, December 4th. Mr. W. J. Hynes, who was Dr. Cronin's intimate friend during his lifetime, occupied the whole of Thursday, December 5th, and a portion of Friday, December 6th, with a royal tribute to the memory of the murdered patriot, and a grouping of the facts of the conspiracy. Mr. Foster, on behalf of Beggs, and Mr. Forrest, for the other defendants, followed in their turn. Luther Laflin Mills had been selected to make the closing address, but a sudden attack of illness, which confined him to his room, necessitated a change in the programme, and State's Attorney Longenecker, on Dec. 13, brought the speech-making portion of the trial to a close.
J. M. LONGENECKER, STATE'S ATTORNEY.
OPENING FOR THE STATE.—THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED—A MASTERLY ARGUMENT BY STATE'S ATTORNEY LONGENECKER—TRACING THE PLOT FROM ITS INCEPTION TO THE MURDER—AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE—ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE—DONAHOE, WING, FOSTER AND FORREST MAKE THEIR FINAL PLEAS FOR THE PRISONERS, AND INGHAM, HYNES AND LONGENECKER CLOSE FOR THE STATE.
OPENING FOR THE STATE.—THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED—A MASTERLY ARGUMENT BY STATE'S ATTORNEY LONGENECKER—TRACING THE PLOT FROM ITS INCEPTION TO THE MURDER—AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE—ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE—DONAHOE, WING, FOSTER AND FORREST MAKE THEIR FINAL PLEAS FOR THE PRISONERS, AND INGHAM, HYNES AND LONGENECKER CLOSE FOR THE STATE.
State's Attorney Longenecker was on his feet the moment the witness had left the stand. It was apparent that the State was determined to push the remainder of the proceedings with all possible speed. The prisoners looked anxious; the vast audience expectant.
"You may proceed," said Judge McConnell, and clearing his throat, the State's Attorney commenced a memorable address.
He spoke as follows: