"Hello, Tschappatt, what are you doing here?" And then slapping him on the shoulder continued: "Have you been summoned as a venireman?"Mr. Tschappatt replied that he had, and was anxious to be excused, as he could not spare the time to sit on the case."Come outside and have a drink," resumed Soloman. Taking Tschappatt by the arm they adjourned to a neighboring saloon. While they stood at the bar sipping a glass of beer, Soloman said:"Tschappatt, you must have a pretty hard time of it to get along and support a family. How would you like to enter a scheme where you could make a thousand dollars?"Tschappatt innocently replied that he was in on it. "How is the money to be made?" he asked.Leading Tschappatt over to one corner of the saloon, the bailiff revealed the scheme."I'll tell you what I want you to do," he said. "Get on the jury, if you possibly can, and there's a thousand dollars in it for you if you stick out for an acquittal."Tschappatt immediately tore himself away from the bailiff's grasp, and replied emphatically that he would have nothing to do with it."You ought to know me well enough, Soloman," he said, "to know that no amount of money could bribe me to defeat the ends of justice. If the prisoners on trial are guilty of what they are chargedwith, I say hang them, and everybody else who is connected with the conspiracy. No, sir; you can't bribe me, and you ought to know that."With this the venireman attempted to get away from the bailiff, but Soloman held on to him with a vise-like grasp."Don't be a fool, Tschappatt," said Soloman, "you're a poor man, and ought to know that a thousand dollars is not to be picked up every day. Now, listen to me, and I'll show you how you can make it and nobody will ever be the wiser. If you properly answer the questions put to you by the lawyers you will in all probability be passed and sworn in as a juror. Now, I'll see that you get the money—leave that to me. Of course the money won't be given to you, but your wife will get it, so it will be all the same. On a certain day that you will appoint she will appear in court wearing a certain dress that you will designate. By that you will know that she has received the money, and if she doesn't wear that dress you will know the reverse. But don't let that trouble you. She'll get the money."Soloman," said Tschappatt, "what kind of a man do you take me for? You first ask me to sell myself and then you want to drag my wife into it. I have a good mind to knock you down. You deserve it.""Well, there's no use getting hot about it," said Soloman. "I thought I was doing you a good turn, and only that we have known each other for years I would not have put a thousand dollars in your way. But you can do just as you please about it—accept it or reject it. If I were you, however, I would consider the proposition. It will be many a long day before you get a chance again to make a cool thousand."Tschappatt replied that he would not entertain the matter for a moment, "and if I had known this was the reason," he said, "that you called me out I would not have come."They then returned to the criminal court building, Soloman still talking about the proposition.Tschappatt rejoined the other veniremen who were waiting in the ante-room, but did not utter a word of what had passed between him and the bailiff. At noon time, when the court took a recess until 2 o'clock, Tschappatt went back to the place where he was employed and worked hard to catch up for the time he had lost. He returned to the criminal court a few minutes before 2 o'clock. Soloman was waiting for him at the foot of the stairs."Where have you been for the past two hours?" was the greeting from the bailiff. "I have been looking all over for you. Did you consider that proposition I made you?"Tschappatt told him that he had not, and tried to brush him to one side so he could go up-stairs into the ante-room. Soloman stopped him, and then offered him $5,000 if he would get on the jury and stand out for acquittal. This is the language he used:"We have got to have you on that jury, and you can't get out of it. Think of it—$5,000 for a few days' work. Are you a fool that you won't accept it?""I gave you my answer this morning, Soloman, and I make you the same reply now. I will not accept. All the money in Chicago could not induce me to do as you want me. Now, let me pass on up-stairs?""Don't say anything about this," was the bailiff's injunction, and he followed Tschappatt up into the court-room.The five bailiffs, one of whom was Soloman, went over to the jail and brought the prisoners into court. Soloman sat in a chair behind Kunze.About the middle of the afternoon Tschappatt was brought in from the ante-room and took his seat in the jury-box. In answer to the questions from the attorneys he said he had formed opinions regarding the case, and did not think he could give the prisoners a fair trial. He had visited the Carlson cottage, he said, and talked with some one there about the case. The court excused him for cause.During the examination of Tschappatt Soloman kept his eyes on him continually and was greatly agitated, evidently fearing that he would tell the court about being approached. When he left the box, however, he took his secret with him.
"Hello, Tschappatt, what are you doing here?" And then slapping him on the shoulder continued: "Have you been summoned as a venireman?"
Mr. Tschappatt replied that he had, and was anxious to be excused, as he could not spare the time to sit on the case.
"Come outside and have a drink," resumed Soloman. Taking Tschappatt by the arm they adjourned to a neighboring saloon. While they stood at the bar sipping a glass of beer, Soloman said:
"Tschappatt, you must have a pretty hard time of it to get along and support a family. How would you like to enter a scheme where you could make a thousand dollars?"
Tschappatt innocently replied that he was in on it. "How is the money to be made?" he asked.
Leading Tschappatt over to one corner of the saloon, the bailiff revealed the scheme.
"I'll tell you what I want you to do," he said. "Get on the jury, if you possibly can, and there's a thousand dollars in it for you if you stick out for an acquittal."
Tschappatt immediately tore himself away from the bailiff's grasp, and replied emphatically that he would have nothing to do with it.
"You ought to know me well enough, Soloman," he said, "to know that no amount of money could bribe me to defeat the ends of justice. If the prisoners on trial are guilty of what they are chargedwith, I say hang them, and everybody else who is connected with the conspiracy. No, sir; you can't bribe me, and you ought to know that."
With this the venireman attempted to get away from the bailiff, but Soloman held on to him with a vise-like grasp.
"Don't be a fool, Tschappatt," said Soloman, "you're a poor man, and ought to know that a thousand dollars is not to be picked up every day. Now, listen to me, and I'll show you how you can make it and nobody will ever be the wiser. If you properly answer the questions put to you by the lawyers you will in all probability be passed and sworn in as a juror. Now, I'll see that you get the money—leave that to me. Of course the money won't be given to you, but your wife will get it, so it will be all the same. On a certain day that you will appoint she will appear in court wearing a certain dress that you will designate. By that you will know that she has received the money, and if she doesn't wear that dress you will know the reverse. But don't let that trouble you. She'll get the money.
"Soloman," said Tschappatt, "what kind of a man do you take me for? You first ask me to sell myself and then you want to drag my wife into it. I have a good mind to knock you down. You deserve it."
"Well, there's no use getting hot about it," said Soloman. "I thought I was doing you a good turn, and only that we have known each other for years I would not have put a thousand dollars in your way. But you can do just as you please about it—accept it or reject it. If I were you, however, I would consider the proposition. It will be many a long day before you get a chance again to make a cool thousand."
Tschappatt replied that he would not entertain the matter for a moment, "and if I had known this was the reason," he said, "that you called me out I would not have come."
They then returned to the criminal court building, Soloman still talking about the proposition.
Tschappatt rejoined the other veniremen who were waiting in the ante-room, but did not utter a word of what had passed between him and the bailiff. At noon time, when the court took a recess until 2 o'clock, Tschappatt went back to the place where he was employed and worked hard to catch up for the time he had lost. He returned to the criminal court a few minutes before 2 o'clock. Soloman was waiting for him at the foot of the stairs.
"Where have you been for the past two hours?" was the greeting from the bailiff. "I have been looking all over for you. Did you consider that proposition I made you?"
Tschappatt told him that he had not, and tried to brush him to one side so he could go up-stairs into the ante-room. Soloman stopped him, and then offered him $5,000 if he would get on the jury and stand out for acquittal. This is the language he used:
"We have got to have you on that jury, and you can't get out of it. Think of it—$5,000 for a few days' work. Are you a fool that you won't accept it?"
"I gave you my answer this morning, Soloman, and I make you the same reply now. I will not accept. All the money in Chicago could not induce me to do as you want me. Now, let me pass on up-stairs?"
"Don't say anything about this," was the bailiff's injunction, and he followed Tschappatt up into the court-room.
The five bailiffs, one of whom was Soloman, went over to the jail and brought the prisoners into court. Soloman sat in a chair behind Kunze.
About the middle of the afternoon Tschappatt was brought in from the ante-room and took his seat in the jury-box. In answer to the questions from the attorneys he said he had formed opinions regarding the case, and did not think he could give the prisoners a fair trial. He had visited the Carlson cottage, he said, and talked with some one there about the case. The court excused him for cause.
During the examination of Tschappatt Soloman kept his eyes on him continually and was greatly agitated, evidently fearing that he would tell the court about being approached. When he left the box, however, he took his secret with him.
As good fortune would have it, on leaving the court room Tschappatt encountered his employer, Benjamin V. Page, to whom he told this story. By the latter it was communicated to Mr. Mills, and the prosecuting officials, with the consent of the court, immediately commenced the investigation already alluded to. Soloman was sent forand at first emphatically denied the accusation that had been made against him. Confronted with the honest German, however, he was forced to admit his guilt, and make a full statement of his connection with the conspiracy. From his pocket he produced a slip of paper on which was a list of names and addresses of jurors whom it was thought could be influenced by money, and a comparison showed that it contained the names of several men who were on the special venire, and at that time waiting to be examined. This list, Soloman said, was given to him by Hanks, one of his fellow-bailiffs. Upon being interrogated this individual was also compelled to admit his connection with the affair.
With these statements as a foundation, still more important developments were brought to the surface without much difficulty. It was found that Fred. W. Smith, a manufacturer's agent, had offered several citizens the sum of $2,000 each to get on the Cronin jury. Hanks had made an offer to Joseph Konen, a fruit dealer, of $1,000 if he could succeed in passing the lawyers and would render a verdict for the defense. Another man had been offered $1,000 with the same object by Jeremiah O'Donnell, who a few weeks before had received an appointment in the internalrevenue as gauger for the Calumet District, and the latter in turn had been approached by Thomas Kavanaugh, a member of a plumbing firm. Hanks appeared to have been one of the big cogs in the machine, so much so that he had advanced $1,000 to Soloman for his services as a briber. Behind Hanks was Kavanaugh, who was an active member of the Clan-na-Gael. Both were spokes in the big wheel of the machine which had been buzzing so silently and as they imagined, so successfully. Within a few hours after the indictments had been returned, the men named therein had been arrested and incarcerated in jail. The investigation was continued upon the following day and further facts were brought to light which warranted the presentation of the matter to the regular Grand Jury for the October term. This body, after spending two hours in the examination of witnesses, returned additional indictments against Smith, Hanks and Soloman, together with an indictment against John Graham, confidential clerk to A. S. Trude, a prominent member of the bar. The indictment of Graham was based on evidence tending to show that he had originally employed the parties that had endeavored to corrupt the special veniremen. According to the story told by Bailiff Hanks to the Grand Jury, Graham had offered to pay $2,000 each for two or more men,saying that money was no object. He had also employed the bailiff to keep up the drooping spirits of certain of the prisoners by delivering to them verbal messages of cheer from their friends on the outside, Graham paying handsomely for this service. He was arrested, but immediately released on bail, and bondsmen were found for all of the men concerned in the attempted bribery. Judge Longenecker, and the attorneys assisting him, however, were convinced that they had yet to reach the fountain-head of the directing conspiracy, and their next move was the arrest of Henry N. Stoltenberg, the confidential clerk and stenographer in the office of Alexander Sullivan. At the same time the residence of the latter was once more placed under surveillance. After being detained over night, the clerk was taken before the Grand Jury. His answers to the questions propounded were regarded as of considerable importance, more especially his admission that he had received letters from a prominent Irishman in Toronto, and which had been addressed to him under cover to a second party. He was then released. Alexander Sullivan's law partner, Thomas G. Windes, and E. J. McArdle, a young Irish lawyer were also examined, but both declared that they knew nothing whatever regarding the matter under investigation.
It was evident by this time that sufficient had been accomplished to frustrate the purposes of the conspiracy, and, as the resumption of the search for jurors was imperatively ordered by the court, the effort to discover the wheels within wheels of the jury-bribing plot was abandoned for the time being. Enough had been discovered to prove that the men behind the prisoners were prepared to go to any lengths to prevent a conviction. As Luther Laflin Mills remarked, in that earnest and impressive manner which characterized all his utterances:
"The plot was the most damnable and hellish that has ever been concocted to defeat the ends of justice. It can not be exaggerated. It extends all over the country, and its ramifications are so numerous and far-reaching that it seems almost incredible that we have made such progress in marking them out. It is without parallel in the history of legal jurisprudence in this miserable effort to defile the laws of Illinois. When all the facts are known, as they are sure to be sooner or later, the whole civilized world will be shocked, as it was when the news of the conspiracy that ended in Dr. Cronin's death was sent out. The public is entitled to know all the facts, because it ought to know the obstacles that the officers of the prosecution have had to encounter from the 4th of May up to the presenttime. We have sought earnestly and honestly to prevent a miscarriage of justice in this case, and thanks to the brave young man who was proof against bribery and his courageous employer who reported the facts to us, we have broken up a conspiracy that would have set at naught the labor of months."
Larger Image
SCENE IN THE COURT ROOM DURING THE MEMORABLE TRIAL.
A JURY SECURED AT LAST—NAMES AND SKETCHES OF THE TWELVE MEN SELECTED TO DETERMINE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED—THE TRIAL UNDER WAY—OPENING SPEECHES FOR THE STATE—SCENES IN THE COURT ROOM.
A JURY SECURED AT LAST—NAMES AND SKETCHES OF THE TWELVE MEN SELECTED TO DETERMINE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED—THE TRIAL UNDER WAY—OPENING SPEECHES FOR THE STATE—SCENES IN THE COURT ROOM.
Hundreds, if not thousands of people besieged the entrances to the Criminal Court building at an early hour on the morning of Friday, October 25th. It was the opening day of the great trial. Men and women were wedged together in a compact mass. They were packed solid on the iron steps leading down from the entrance onto the sidewalk, and out in the road to the other side of the street. Special instructions had been given to the bailiffs to maintain order, as well as to eject all suspicious persons. They made a bold fight for awhile, but when the doors had been opened they were overwhelmed by numbers. Within a few minutes every seat in the court room was occupied, and hundreds were fighting for places to stand. The crowd below pressed upward and it began to look as though the building would be taken by storm.Reinforced in numbers, however, the bailiffs made another rally against the crowd, and finally succeeded in closing the doors. Only those presenting special orders were admitted for the rest of the day.
The clock in the court room was striking ten when the prisoners filed in through the door communicating with the iron corridor that led to the jail. Ex-Senior Warden Beggs led the procession. Behind him came Coughlin, O'Sullivan, Burke and Kunze, in the order named. A big bailiff walked shoulder to shoulder with each prisoner. For a moment the five men who were about to be placed on trial for their lives appeared paralyzed as they contemplated the immense throng that had gathered to gaze at them, and to listen to the opening address in behalf of the State. Beggs was as white as a sheet, Burke's face crimsoned, while the faces of the other prisoners turned pale and red by turn. Close after them came the attorneys for the defense, then those for the prosecution, then Judge McConnell, and lastly the jurors.
THE JURY.
THE JURY.
Each of the twelve good men and true rose in his place and answered as his name was called. This was the roster:
John Culver, age 43; born in Illinois; father, American; mother, Scotch; married; real estate business; Methodist Episcopal.
James A. Pierson, 54; born in New York State; parents, American; married; farmer; no religion.
Charles C. Dix, 33; born in Chicago; American parents; bachelor; insurance business; Episcopalian.
John L. Hall, 29; born in Illinois; American parents; married; architectural draughtsman; Methodist Episcopal.
Henry D. Walker, 58; born in Massachusetts; American parents; married; upholsterer; Protestant.
Frank Allison, 39; born in New York State; American parents; machinist; no religion.
George Luther Corke, 30; born in Illinois; parents, English; married; druggist; Methodist.
William Stanley North, 33; born in Cleveland, Ohio; American parents; married; manufacturer; Presbyterian.
Edward S. Bryan, 40; born in New Jersey; American parents; married; law book salesman; Congregationalist.
Elijah Bontecou, 35; born in Troy, N. Y.; American parents; married; salesman; Protestant.
Charles F. Marlor, 30; born in New York; parents, American; married; clerk; Episcopalian.
Benjamin F. Clark, 53; American by birth and parentage; married; real estate dealer; Methodist.
Breathless silence prevailed. Judge McConnell inclined his head. The gavel fell. State's Attorney Longenecker, with his hands thrust deep into the pockets of his trousers, was on his feet in an instant. Without any preliminaries, he plunged direct into his opening address. The effects of the months of hard work he had devoted to the case were plainly apparent. His face was pale and his voice weak, but he braced himself for his task, and without any attempt at oratory, but in a plain, succinct manner which indicated that he had thoroughly mastered his subject, he gave to the jury in the short space of two hours a complete and admirable statement of the evidence that had been collected and would be submitted to the body. Commencing with a review of the conception and progress of the Clan-na-Gael, he traced the movements of the organization and the extent of the active interest in its affairs that had been manifested by the murdered man. The motive for the crime, he declared, was the bold warfarewhich Dr. Cronin had waged against his enemies and especially against the deadly and malicious plottings of the triangle. The speaker became thoroughly aroused as he dealt with this branch of his subject, and with his right hand sweeping the air, he lashed the triangle in the most vigorous English. Mr. Forrest objected that the famous and omnipotent triumvirate had nothing to do with the case, but the objection was overruled. The State's Attorney went on to declare that the plotting against Dr. Cronin began about the first of the year. It was in Camp 20 that the conspiracy had been hatched, and of this Camp Beggs, Coughlin, Cooney, Burke and O'Sullivan were members. Here it was that the fate of the victim was sealed, and the commission of the crime intrusted to reliable hands. In vivid language the speaker proceeded to show the lizard-like deliberation with which the plotters had gone about their work; how they had purchased the furniture and trunk, rented the cottage, lured the physician from his residence; beaten out his life; robbed the corpse of every article of identification; save the "agnus dei" which was fastened around the neck; thrust it into the trunk; borne it to Edgewater; and there dumped it into the catch basin. The prisoners scowled and the jury listened with looks of intense interest as the State's Attorney, although almost exhausted byhis effort, continued with his vivid recital. The evidence which would be presented against each one of the prisoners was briefly mapped out, and the speaker grew more earnest than ever as he went on to tell how the hidden hand that directed the murder had sought to malign the dead. The word had been passed to the rank and file that Dr. Cronin was a spy and that he would soon appear across the water as another Le Caron. It was possible that the actual murderers were led to their work by this belief. It was certain at least that a dastardly attempt had been made by the hidden hand to spread the spy theory after the doctor had disappeared. Men had been told to do such acts as would leave the public to believe that the physician was still alive, and so successful had they been that only by a mere accident was it that their plans were crushed forever. And so the speaker went on with his straightforward narrative of the conspiracy and its sequel and finally closed a powerful address with a brief peroration in which he admonished the jurors to do their duty without fear or favor. Among other things, the State's Attorney said, in the course of his address:
"Gentlemen of the jury, you have been selected with great care to try this case. You have been questioned perhaps more than you thought proper, yet we thought it our duty to be very inquisitivewith reference to your past histories, so that we might, in trying this very important case, feel that we had twelve men who would render a fair and impartial verdict. You all stand before this court and before this community with characters that are written, and if, after hearing the evidence in this case, you render a truthful verdict, whether that verdict be to unlock the prison doors and set at liberty these men, or whether it be to inflict the highest punishment for the crime with which they are charged, you can go out into the world with a passport of duty done which will be an honor to you through all the future of your lives. Each of you has said under your oaths that you would try this case upon the law and the evidence—that you would render a verdict based exclusively upon the law and the evidence; that you would not be controlled by public opinion; that you would not be governed by anything other than the evidence in the case; no matter how much regard you may have for public opinion, no matter how much we may feel that oftentimes public opinion is right, yet you as jurors are sworn to try this case on the evidence and the law, and to render a verdict based upon it exclusively. You answered that you would try this case fairly and impartially. Fair and impartial verdicts mean verdicts not only fair to one side, but to both sides of a case on trial. Too often jurors and courts and even prosecutors, in their anxiety to be fair toward men on trial, step over the line of duty, and criminals go unpunished and the law becomes a farce. While I want you to give these men a fair and impartial trial; while we desire that you give them the benefit of everything the law in its wise provisions enables you to give, in your anxiety to be fair don't step over the line of duty and do an injustice to the people of this great State. You have said that before you would convict any man on trial in this case you would want the people to prove that he is guilty beyond a doubt—a reasonable doubt; that you would require the State to make out the case from the witness stand; and that you would respect the provisions of the law that says every man is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; that you would not convict any man unless you were satisfied of his guilt from the evidence. But, let me say, the presumption of innocence is not evidence in the case, and when you hear of that presumption all the way through this case understand that it is not evidence."While the law presumes every man innocent until proven guilty, yet it is not such a presumption as to rebut evidence. Presumption simply stands up before you and says: Before you canconvict this man he must be proven guilty. And as the evidence is given to you step by step the presumption stands as a guard between innocence and the evidence that is being given, until at last, when your mind is satisfied, when your judgment has come to the conclusion that the men are guilty, the presumption is wiped out, and you are no longer to presume the man innocent."When you stated that you would not convict these men except they were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it simply meant this—that, after hearing the evidence, if you are satisfied of the truth of the charge; if you are satisfied, as jurymen sworn to do your duty, that the men on trial are guilty, then you have no right to go digging around for doubts; you have no right to hunt around for an excuse to refrain from doing that which the law makes it your duty to do. A reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable. I mention these facts because the learned counsel for the defense, which was proper and right, were anxious to impress on your minds that before you could convict anybody you must believe them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have taken an oath in this case and are sworn to try it upon the law and the evidence. The oath taken is that you will well and truly try this case and the verdict render according to the law and the evidence. That means that there is an issue to be tried. The men at the bar are charged with the crime of murder on the one hand; that on the 4th of May, in this county and State, they did maliciously, wickedly and feloniously kill and murder Dr. Cronin. That is the charge made in the indictment. On the other hand, these prisoners at the bar say they are not guilty. That issue is what you are sworn to try. It is as to whether these men on trial killed and murdered Dr. Cronin. What is murder? may be asked. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. Before you can convict these men it becomes the duty of the people to prove every material allegation in the indictment. What are the material allegations in the indictment? First, that Dr. Cronin was killed; next, that he was killed in this county and State; next, that these defendants killed him without provocation or excuse. These are the material issues to be proven in this ease."If you believe from the evidence that he was murdered and that these men killed him, as charged in the indictment, then the question is settled. Then you have the law as to murder to govern you, and you are the judges of the law and the evidence; and if you find that these defendants killed him, and that he was murdered, then thestatute fixes the punishment, or leaves it to you to fix the punishment. That is the law in the case, except what you may get from his honor on the bench. I apprehend that the learned counsel for the defense will not contest the fact, if it is proven that Dr. Cronin was killed, as we have charged—that he was stricken to death, as we can prove—I don't apprehend that they will contend then it was any other homicide than that of murder. So you will have that question to settle. If we prove that Dr. Cronin was killed as we allege he was killed, there will be no question as to whether it was murder or manslaughter; it will be admitted by the learned counsel for the defense that it was murder or nothing.THE EVIDENCE MAINLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL."Now, gentlemen, this is the issue that you are to try. His honor from the bench has pronounced every one of you a qualified juror in the case; and as now we approach the evidence, I desire to call your attention to something that was talked of a great deal while we were selecting this jury. You have by this time learned that most of the evidence of the case will be that of a circumstantial character. There are two kinds of evidence, as you have learned—circumstantial and direct evidence—and yet, after all, nearly all evidence is circumstantial. You may not have read it, but any lawyer at the bar will remember reading of the incidents or illustrations by Wharton and other writers, in which they say that nearly all evidence is circumstantial. Even if you are looking at a man holding a pistol, and see him fire it at another, and see the man drop—that is all circumstantial. You see the man holding the pistol; you hear the report; you see the other man drop, and you are satisfied that he is shot, and yet you don't see what killed him. The bullet is found in his brain; you saw the man pointing the pistol, and these are the circumstances of that case, although you saw the acts that brought about the circumstances which led you to believe he was killed by the bullet. That is one way of illustrating circumstantial evidence." Here the State's attorney gave another illustration on the same line, and proceeded: "That is circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are truths. Nearly every case that comes into court rests almost exclusively upon circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is direct evidence making up the circumstances, but after all, the crime itself, the act itself, is proved by the circumstances in the case."So that, while we must rely upon the circumstances in this case, yet we propose to show to you evidence enough to convince your minds thoroughly upon the question of the guilt of these accused. We shall prove this by circumstances just as much as if there had been an eye-witness of the scene. You stated, gentlemen, as I said before, that you would not convict unless your minds were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, of the guilt of these defendants. You stated further that if you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt—every man of you satisfied—that the crime was of such a character as to deserve the highest penalty you would then have no conscientious scruples against capital punishment—that you were not opposed to capital punishment. It does not matter whether your minds are satisfied by circumstantial evidence or direct evidence as to the guilt of the men on trial—you stand pledged on your oaths to execute the law as you believed it ought to be executed in the case."On the night of May 4th, soon after seven o'clock, was the last time that Dr. Cronin was ever seen alive, except by the men who assassinated and beat out his life. Until the 22d day of May his body was not seen by his friends or any one except those who thrust it into the catch-basin in Lake View."We claim in this case that the murder of Dr. Cronin—as we shall prove it was a murder—was brought about by a conspiracy. These men are charged with having murdered Dr. Cronin. The evidence that we shall introduce will show a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin, and we shall show that the conspiracy was formed and carried into execution, and having been carried into execution, terminated in the killing of Cronin, and that these men are liable for the murder."
"Gentlemen of the jury, you have been selected with great care to try this case. You have been questioned perhaps more than you thought proper, yet we thought it our duty to be very inquisitivewith reference to your past histories, so that we might, in trying this very important case, feel that we had twelve men who would render a fair and impartial verdict. You all stand before this court and before this community with characters that are written, and if, after hearing the evidence in this case, you render a truthful verdict, whether that verdict be to unlock the prison doors and set at liberty these men, or whether it be to inflict the highest punishment for the crime with which they are charged, you can go out into the world with a passport of duty done which will be an honor to you through all the future of your lives. Each of you has said under your oaths that you would try this case upon the law and the evidence—that you would render a verdict based exclusively upon the law and the evidence; that you would not be controlled by public opinion; that you would not be governed by anything other than the evidence in the case; no matter how much regard you may have for public opinion, no matter how much we may feel that oftentimes public opinion is right, yet you as jurors are sworn to try this case on the evidence and the law, and to render a verdict based upon it exclusively. You answered that you would try this case fairly and impartially. Fair and impartial verdicts mean verdicts not only fair to one side, but to both sides of a case on trial. Too often jurors and courts and even prosecutors, in their anxiety to be fair toward men on trial, step over the line of duty, and criminals go unpunished and the law becomes a farce. While I want you to give these men a fair and impartial trial; while we desire that you give them the benefit of everything the law in its wise provisions enables you to give, in your anxiety to be fair don't step over the line of duty and do an injustice to the people of this great State. You have said that before you would convict any man on trial in this case you would want the people to prove that he is guilty beyond a doubt—a reasonable doubt; that you would require the State to make out the case from the witness stand; and that you would respect the provisions of the law that says every man is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; that you would not convict any man unless you were satisfied of his guilt from the evidence. But, let me say, the presumption of innocence is not evidence in the case, and when you hear of that presumption all the way through this case understand that it is not evidence.
"While the law presumes every man innocent until proven guilty, yet it is not such a presumption as to rebut evidence. Presumption simply stands up before you and says: Before you canconvict this man he must be proven guilty. And as the evidence is given to you step by step the presumption stands as a guard between innocence and the evidence that is being given, until at last, when your mind is satisfied, when your judgment has come to the conclusion that the men are guilty, the presumption is wiped out, and you are no longer to presume the man innocent.
"When you stated that you would not convict these men except they were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it simply meant this—that, after hearing the evidence, if you are satisfied of the truth of the charge; if you are satisfied, as jurymen sworn to do your duty, that the men on trial are guilty, then you have no right to go digging around for doubts; you have no right to hunt around for an excuse to refrain from doing that which the law makes it your duty to do. A reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable. I mention these facts because the learned counsel for the defense, which was proper and right, were anxious to impress on your minds that before you could convict anybody you must believe them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have taken an oath in this case and are sworn to try it upon the law and the evidence. The oath taken is that you will well and truly try this case and the verdict render according to the law and the evidence. That means that there is an issue to be tried. The men at the bar are charged with the crime of murder on the one hand; that on the 4th of May, in this county and State, they did maliciously, wickedly and feloniously kill and murder Dr. Cronin. That is the charge made in the indictment. On the other hand, these prisoners at the bar say they are not guilty. That issue is what you are sworn to try. It is as to whether these men on trial killed and murdered Dr. Cronin. What is murder? may be asked. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. Before you can convict these men it becomes the duty of the people to prove every material allegation in the indictment. What are the material allegations in the indictment? First, that Dr. Cronin was killed; next, that he was killed in this county and State; next, that these defendants killed him without provocation or excuse. These are the material issues to be proven in this ease.
"If you believe from the evidence that he was murdered and that these men killed him, as charged in the indictment, then the question is settled. Then you have the law as to murder to govern you, and you are the judges of the law and the evidence; and if you find that these defendants killed him, and that he was murdered, then thestatute fixes the punishment, or leaves it to you to fix the punishment. That is the law in the case, except what you may get from his honor on the bench. I apprehend that the learned counsel for the defense will not contest the fact, if it is proven that Dr. Cronin was killed, as we have charged—that he was stricken to death, as we can prove—I don't apprehend that they will contend then it was any other homicide than that of murder. So you will have that question to settle. If we prove that Dr. Cronin was killed as we allege he was killed, there will be no question as to whether it was murder or manslaughter; it will be admitted by the learned counsel for the defense that it was murder or nothing.
"Now, gentlemen, this is the issue that you are to try. His honor from the bench has pronounced every one of you a qualified juror in the case; and as now we approach the evidence, I desire to call your attention to something that was talked of a great deal while we were selecting this jury. You have by this time learned that most of the evidence of the case will be that of a circumstantial character. There are two kinds of evidence, as you have learned—circumstantial and direct evidence—and yet, after all, nearly all evidence is circumstantial. You may not have read it, but any lawyer at the bar will remember reading of the incidents or illustrations by Wharton and other writers, in which they say that nearly all evidence is circumstantial. Even if you are looking at a man holding a pistol, and see him fire it at another, and see the man drop—that is all circumstantial. You see the man holding the pistol; you hear the report; you see the other man drop, and you are satisfied that he is shot, and yet you don't see what killed him. The bullet is found in his brain; you saw the man pointing the pistol, and these are the circumstances of that case, although you saw the acts that brought about the circumstances which led you to believe he was killed by the bullet. That is one way of illustrating circumstantial evidence." Here the State's attorney gave another illustration on the same line, and proceeded: "That is circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are truths. Nearly every case that comes into court rests almost exclusively upon circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is direct evidence making up the circumstances, but after all, the crime itself, the act itself, is proved by the circumstances in the case.
"So that, while we must rely upon the circumstances in this case, yet we propose to show to you evidence enough to convince your minds thoroughly upon the question of the guilt of these accused. We shall prove this by circumstances just as much as if there had been an eye-witness of the scene. You stated, gentlemen, as I said before, that you would not convict unless your minds were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, of the guilt of these defendants. You stated further that if you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt—every man of you satisfied—that the crime was of such a character as to deserve the highest penalty you would then have no conscientious scruples against capital punishment—that you were not opposed to capital punishment. It does not matter whether your minds are satisfied by circumstantial evidence or direct evidence as to the guilt of the men on trial—you stand pledged on your oaths to execute the law as you believed it ought to be executed in the case.
"On the night of May 4th, soon after seven o'clock, was the last time that Dr. Cronin was ever seen alive, except by the men who assassinated and beat out his life. Until the 22d day of May his body was not seen by his friends or any one except those who thrust it into the catch-basin in Lake View.
"We claim in this case that the murder of Dr. Cronin—as we shall prove it was a murder—was brought about by a conspiracy. These men are charged with having murdered Dr. Cronin. The evidence that we shall introduce will show a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin, and we shall show that the conspiracy was formed and carried into execution, and having been carried into execution, terminated in the killing of Cronin, and that these men are liable for the murder."
From this point Judge Longenecker went through in detail the entire record of the case as it affected the defendants collectively and as individuals and then continued:
"I believe I have gone over the main points of the evidence. Of course, there will be evidence here and there showing conclusively that this conspiracy was well planned, and showing conclusively to your minds before you are ready to render your verdict that these defendants are guilty. I said that this was a conspiracy. Any onewho looks at the evidence can see very readily that the acts committed of themselves are conclusive that the murder was the result of a conspiracy. When Dr. Cronin's body was found the head was cut in a dozen places—from behind and on the temple—showing that they had killed him by giving him lick after lick until his life was beaten out. All that will be described by the doctors; the condition of the body shows that the blows were dealt from behind."Now, a conspiracy is made up of certain acts by individuals, either together or separate, and every act that was done by either of these parties necessary to carry out the object of the conspiracy binds the others who were in the conspiracy. For instance, if a conspiracy existed, then the act of Coughlin in hiring the horse was the act of Burke, the act of Sullivan, or the act of Beggs, or any other person who engaged in that conspiracy. The renting of the cottage by Burke under the name of Williams was the same as if they had all gone there and rented it. The going over to P. O'Sullivan's to tell him they had rented the cottage was the going over of all those interested in the conspiracy, and so in making the contract with Dr. Cronin. If O'Sullivan made a contract and those other parties were in the conspiracy, and that was a part of the conspiracy, then they all entered into that contract as a part of the work to be done. Every act that was done by either of those parties before the commission of the crime is the act of all, if you believe there was a conspiracy to kill Dr. Cronin.ALL ARE GUILTY."Another thing I wish to call attention to, and that is that the accessory is the same as the principal. It does not matter whether either of these parties struck the deadly blow; it does not matter whether they were a thousand miles away from the cottage—if it was a conspiracy and they were accessories to the crime, then they are principals to the crime just as much as if they helped to strike the deadly blow. For instance, three men may enter into a conspiracy, knowing that you have $1,000 in your house. You may live between Thirtieth and Thirty-first streets, on State. The three men go to rob your house. One stands at Thirtieth street and the other at Thirty-first street, and the other goes in and robs you of your money. All of these three men have committed burglary. The men who stood on the street corners are just as guilty as the man who went inside for the purpose of stealing your money."When you take this evidence into consideration, when you take the fact that this man Coughlin hired the horse, and another fact that after Dinan had gone to the station and Coughlin said: "Don't say anything about me engaging the horse and buggy; you may get me into trouble, because Cronin and I were not friends": when you consider that he claimed that the man for whom the horse and buggy were hired was named Smith; that he was sent out to hunt Smith and saw Smith and let him go; when you consider the hiring of the flat at 117 Clark street, the buying of the furniture and the trunk and the strap, the renting of the cottage, the contract between the doctor and this man O'Sullivan; the statement that a sister was to be there to occupy the cottage; the driving of the doctor from his home under the supposition that he was going to minister to the wants of an injured man; the appointment of a secret committee at the instance of Dan Coughlin; the fact that the senior guardian said that the committee reported to him and not to the camp; the statements that Dr. Cronin was a spy—the grouping together of all these things makes the conspirators as guilty as if the murder was the act of one man.AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE."And, gentlemen, if, after hearing this evidence, you are satisfied that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are satisfied from the evidence that this thing has been deliberated upon from the 8th day of February, or from the 19th of April, when they rented the flat on Clark street, and all those deliberations to take away the life of this man Cronin; the appointment of a secret committee; the attempt to make it appear that the society was trying this man as a disguise to those who might not approve of such work; all these things, if they are proved to you; if it appears in evidence that this great deliberation was had, that this great conspiracy was concocted as we claim, that this man's life was taken away, as we shall prove—if all this satisfies your minds, then your duty will be plain, then you can give the correct answer to the question as to whether you have conscientious scruples against the death penalty. Gentlemen, we will present this evidence as rapidly as possible, but I trust you will be patient with us in this case. It is a matter that concerns the people as well as the defendants. We will present it as rapidly as we can, consistent with doing our duty; and when you have heard this evidence, if you are not satisfied that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are not satisfiedthat these men, whether present at the killing of the doctor, or whether only present in the conspiracy; if you are not satisfied that they are guilty of the charge, then, of course, turn them loose. But if this evidence shows this deep laid conspiracy; shows its premeditation; shows the coolness with which they planned it; if it convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, then your duty is claimed to inflict upon them the highest penalty of the law."
"I believe I have gone over the main points of the evidence. Of course, there will be evidence here and there showing conclusively that this conspiracy was well planned, and showing conclusively to your minds before you are ready to render your verdict that these defendants are guilty. I said that this was a conspiracy. Any onewho looks at the evidence can see very readily that the acts committed of themselves are conclusive that the murder was the result of a conspiracy. When Dr. Cronin's body was found the head was cut in a dozen places—from behind and on the temple—showing that they had killed him by giving him lick after lick until his life was beaten out. All that will be described by the doctors; the condition of the body shows that the blows were dealt from behind.
"Now, a conspiracy is made up of certain acts by individuals, either together or separate, and every act that was done by either of these parties necessary to carry out the object of the conspiracy binds the others who were in the conspiracy. For instance, if a conspiracy existed, then the act of Coughlin in hiring the horse was the act of Burke, the act of Sullivan, or the act of Beggs, or any other person who engaged in that conspiracy. The renting of the cottage by Burke under the name of Williams was the same as if they had all gone there and rented it. The going over to P. O'Sullivan's to tell him they had rented the cottage was the going over of all those interested in the conspiracy, and so in making the contract with Dr. Cronin. If O'Sullivan made a contract and those other parties were in the conspiracy, and that was a part of the conspiracy, then they all entered into that contract as a part of the work to be done. Every act that was done by either of those parties before the commission of the crime is the act of all, if you believe there was a conspiracy to kill Dr. Cronin.
"Another thing I wish to call attention to, and that is that the accessory is the same as the principal. It does not matter whether either of these parties struck the deadly blow; it does not matter whether they were a thousand miles away from the cottage—if it was a conspiracy and they were accessories to the crime, then they are principals to the crime just as much as if they helped to strike the deadly blow. For instance, three men may enter into a conspiracy, knowing that you have $1,000 in your house. You may live between Thirtieth and Thirty-first streets, on State. The three men go to rob your house. One stands at Thirtieth street and the other at Thirty-first street, and the other goes in and robs you of your money. All of these three men have committed burglary. The men who stood on the street corners are just as guilty as the man who went inside for the purpose of stealing your money.
"When you take this evidence into consideration, when you take the fact that this man Coughlin hired the horse, and another fact that after Dinan had gone to the station and Coughlin said: "Don't say anything about me engaging the horse and buggy; you may get me into trouble, because Cronin and I were not friends": when you consider that he claimed that the man for whom the horse and buggy were hired was named Smith; that he was sent out to hunt Smith and saw Smith and let him go; when you consider the hiring of the flat at 117 Clark street, the buying of the furniture and the trunk and the strap, the renting of the cottage, the contract between the doctor and this man O'Sullivan; the statement that a sister was to be there to occupy the cottage; the driving of the doctor from his home under the supposition that he was going to minister to the wants of an injured man; the appointment of a secret committee at the instance of Dan Coughlin; the fact that the senior guardian said that the committee reported to him and not to the camp; the statements that Dr. Cronin was a spy—the grouping together of all these things makes the conspirators as guilty as if the murder was the act of one man.
"And, gentlemen, if, after hearing this evidence, you are satisfied that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are satisfied from the evidence that this thing has been deliberated upon from the 8th day of February, or from the 19th of April, when they rented the flat on Clark street, and all those deliberations to take away the life of this man Cronin; the appointment of a secret committee; the attempt to make it appear that the society was trying this man as a disguise to those who might not approve of such work; all these things, if they are proved to you; if it appears in evidence that this great deliberation was had, that this great conspiracy was concocted as we claim, that this man's life was taken away, as we shall prove—if all this satisfies your minds, then your duty will be plain, then you can give the correct answer to the question as to whether you have conscientious scruples against the death penalty. Gentlemen, we will present this evidence as rapidly as possible, but I trust you will be patient with us in this case. It is a matter that concerns the people as well as the defendants. We will present it as rapidly as we can, consistent with doing our duty; and when you have heard this evidence, if you are not satisfied that Dr. Cronin was murdered; if you are not satisfiedthat these men, whether present at the killing of the doctor, or whether only present in the conspiracy; if you are not satisfied that they are guilty of the charge, then, of course, turn them loose. But if this evidence shows this deep laid conspiracy; shows its premeditation; shows the coolness with which they planned it; if it convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, then your duty is claimed to inflict upon them the highest penalty of the law."
John Kunze. John F. Beggs. Daniel Coughlin. Patrick O'Sullivan. Martin Burke.
THE FIVE DEFENDANTS IN COURT.
EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE—THE STORY OF THE CRIME RE-TOLD—A LONG LINE OF WITNESSES—SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES AND MISSING LINKS SUPPLIED—A MASTERLY GROUPING OF THE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE PRISONERS.
EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE—THE STORY OF THE CRIME RE-TOLD—A LONG LINE OF WITNESSES—SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES AND MISSING LINKS SUPPLIED—A MASTERLY GROUPING OF THE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE PRISONERS.
Just as soon as the State's Attorney had resumed his seat, and the announcement had been made that the defense would postpone its reply until the end of the trial, the task of examining the witnesses was commenced. Report had it that the defense would contend that the body dragged from the catch basin had not been satisfactorily identified as that of Dr. Cronin's, and so the prosecution at once set out to prove the corpusdelicti. A large array of witnesses, including ex-Captain Francisco Villiers, James Boland, Mrs. Conklin, James P. Holland, a reporter; H. F. Wisch, the barber; Stephen Conley, who had identified the body by the front teeth; Maurice Morris, by the Agnus Dei; and Joseph O'Byrne, by the broken finger of the right hand, were examined on this point and gave conclusive testimony. The story ofthe discovery of the body was next retold, and the medical men who had examined the corpse testified regarding its condition and the marks of violence which appeared upon the head and other portions of the body. There was a dramatic scene on the second day at the conclusion of the examination of Dr. D. G. Moore, who had assisted in the autopsy. It was developed in the course of the cross-examination that he had, but a few hours before, read the newspaper reports of Dr. Egbert's testimony of the previous day upon the same points. Thereupon Mr. Forrest demanded that the entire testimony be stricken from the record.
Judge McConnell, to the amazement of nearly everybody in the room, sustained the motion. A dramatic scene followed, and suppressed exclamations of surprise burst from the audience. Mr. Forrest, with a triumphant smile, walked hurriedly past his associates and sipped a glass of water. For an instant the public prosecutors were dumbfounded. Mr. Hynes was the first to contest the ruling. His face was crimson with excitement as he drew his massive form above the table at which he was sitting and in a loud voice declared that if such an unprecedented ruling were followed, the trial might just as wellstop then and there. Raising his arm so that his clinched fist was on a level with the bar of the court, Mr. Hynes challenged Judge McConnell to show authorities to sustain such a ruling. Beside the big lawyer was Luther Laflin Mills, pale with emotion. Almost before Mr. Hynes had finished his thundering attack, the clear, resonant voice of Mr. Mills arose above the noise of the street and the mumbling of the auditors. He, too, declared that it was time to stop the case if the testimony of the rest of the State's witnesses was to be excluded for the reason that they had read the testimony of witnesses who had preceded them on the stand. State's Attorney Longenecker nervously watched the fight being waged by his associates. Hurrying down the center aisle were Mr. Ingham and Mr. Scanlan, who were on their way to the State's Attorney's office for authorities. Judge McConnell sat in his chair with his head in his hand. Before him were Mr. Hynes and Mr. Mills, the first red and valiant in attack, the other almost startling in his pallor. The prisoners leaned forward and watched the struggle with intense interest. The prosecutors had scarcely resumed their seats to watch the effect of their first volley, when Mr. Forrest arose and intimated that Dr. Moore had been called at the eleventh hour to patch up the holes in the testimony of Assistant CountyPhysician Egbert. This was a taunt that brought Mr. Hynes and Mr. Mills to their feet again and called forth a censure from the court. Judge McConnell, speaking in a low voice, then said that if such a ruling was enforced in its spirit there would be no reason for continuing the case, but he did not contemplate such a course. Mr. Hynes, seeing that the court was retreating, now leaped to his feet, and with a burst of rhetoric that came very near provoking applause in the benches declared that with such a ruling as that delivered from the bench, the testimony of honorable men who would appear for the State, and who could not be influenced by newspaper reports would be excluded, while the testimony of perjurers who would swear that they had not read the newspaper accounts of the trial would go on record. As the big lawyer sat down, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Scanlan returned with law books piled high upon their arms. But the battle was now over, and the prosecution had won. With much deliberation and a gratuitous encomium on the press for its enterprise and influence, Judge McConnell reversed his previous decision, and ruled that the testimony of witnesses who had read the newspaper reports of the testimony of other witnesses was competent, and that it must be admitted.
Liveryman Dinan, who was put on the standafter this episode, repeated his former statements regarding the hiring of the white horse and buggy by Coughlin, and added, as something new, that, after he had unbosomed himself to Captain Schaack, the detective, meeting him on the street, had remarked to him: "I'd hate to trust you with anything; you're a clear case of weakener."
The inside history of the now famous Camp 20 was next taken up, and numerous witnesses were called to testify regarding its inner workings. Among them were Junior Warden Michael J. Kelley, Recording Secretary John F. O'Connor, Andrew Foy, Patrick J. Ford and Stephen Colleran.
By these witnesses it was sought to show that over two months before the murder of the physician a secret committee had been appointed by Senior Guardian Beggs, on the motion of Coughlin, to investigate the charge that Dr. Cronin had read, in another camp, a circular antagonistic to the triangle, and that this committee had been ordered to report to the Senior Guardian alone.
This was the story as it had been related to Grand Jury, but on the stand most of the witnesses resorted to all manner of strategy to hamper the prosecution, and even the most inconsequential details of the doings of the camp hadto be wrung from them. Colleran admitted, on being closely pressed, that he had seen Coughlin and Burke together in the central part of the city about the time that the plot to murder Dr. Cronin was reaching its maturity, and he also gave conclusive evidence regarding the intimacy of Cooney "The Fox," with Coughlin and Burke.
No inclination to suppress the facts, however, was manifested by Thomas F. O'Connor, when he took the stand. This intrepid Irishman, who had been a member of the Clan-na-Gael for twenty-four years, was a captain in the organization, as well as a Fenian captain, and who had, moreover, distinguished himself as a staunch supporter of Dr. Cronin in the latter's merciless war upon the triangle, told his story without reserve. He said that at the meeting of Camp 20, on February 8th, Andrew Foy, in a speech, had declared that if there were yet four British spies in the Clan-na-Gael organization, as Le Caron had sworn before the Parnell Commission in London, the order ought to be destroyed at once. To this the witness, arising and facing Senior Guardian Beggs, replied that the camps should look to the triangle for traitors, as he was possessed of positive information that Le Caron was the agent of that body. A scene of wild confusion ensued, a score of members leaping totheir feet and demanding the source of Captain O'Connor's information. This he refused to give unless it was insisted upon by Beggs. While the uproar was at its height, a motion was made by Coughlin that a secret committee be appointed to investigate the source of O'Connor's information, which was generally understood to be Dr. Cronin's camp. There was no doubt but that this committee was appointed, for another witness, Dennis O'Connor, who had been in the Clan-na-Gael order for twenty-one years, testified that at a meeting on May 3d, he had heard somebody ask the Senior Guardian if "that secret committee had reported," although he could not recollect the reply. This deficiency of memory was supplied by the next witness, Financial Secretary Patrick Henry Nolan, who had heard Beggs reply that the committee would report to him alone.
Nolan had also met Burke and Cooney at a saloon on the day following the murder and noticed that both were well supplied with funds. There was a straining of necks in the Court room when the name of Patrick McGarry was called, and the athletic opponent of the triangle stalked past the jurors and up the steps leading to the witness stand. He was asked what he had said in Camp 20 when he made his bitter attack on the triangle and turning his honest face toward the jurors below, he replied: