Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 August 1886 — Page 3

JUDGE HOLMAN INTERVIEWED.

Many Things Accomplished by CongressLands Redeemed—Seduced Expense?, From the Indianapolis Sentinel.] Judge Holman, talking of the work done by Congress in the session just closed, . said: “There have been a great many things accomplished which will materially strengthen the Democratic party, and do much to recommend it to the people. The wholesale forfeiture of railroad land grants is one of the most important pieces of legislation that have been before Congress. There have been more lands redeemed and restored to the public domain at this session of Congress than ever before. Upon the whole, it has been a very fair Congress, and I think when it has adjourned it will be found that its work has been generally approved by the people. When the appropriation bills are all m there will be lound considerable reduction in the amounts for carrying on the business of the Government. There have been a great many pension bills passed, and as these become laws it is necessary to pay them; and provisions for this have got to be made. The increase in pensions has been almost $15,000,000, while $5,000,000 have been expended this year for the payment of the Alabama awards. The river and harbor bill, if it is agreed to in conference, will add to the appropriation something like $17,000,000. It is very doubtful, however, if the bill ever becomes a law. lam inclined to think that the President has made a serious error in his numerous vetoes of private pension bills. I look upon it as being in bad taste, although it is true there ts a great deal of favoritism often shown in the passage of pension bills, through the influence and position of those holding places on the Invalid Pension Committee. If pension bills are to be vetoed it is unfortunate that the vetoes have been confined to that class of people who actually need the assistance of the Government. There have been other pension bills which granted to the petitioner larger sums than to the unfortunate and needy widow of the private soldier. All bills of this kind are an evidence of the kindly di&v position of Congress to show its gratitude* and charity to those who actually need it. If there are any mistakes made, let them be made on the side of the poor unfortunate families who bore the burdens of the war. The House, as a direct representative of the people, is the best judge of what is wanted in cases of this kind. “In vetoing the numerous public building bills the President has shown most excellent judgment. The erection of public buildings at places where there is no particular necessity for them is one of the most useless expenditures of the public money that can be indulged in. “The opposition to the Morrison resolution by the President and Secretary of the Treasury is one of the most serious mistakes that could possibly have been made. “Upon this subject, as upon the silver question, public sentiment is undoubtedly against the President. Tne general feeling is to put the money out where it would be employed by the people. “Mr. Cleveland would stand a great deal stronger with the party if he would modify his view* upon the civil-service laws. I think the next House will be Democratic, though the present majority will, no doubt, be reduced. “The public believe that the President is honest in his intentions to make a good administration for the people, irrespective of party. The frankness with which he has dealt with the subjects referred to would imply that he is not designing and scheming for a second term. He is unquestionably respected throughout the country for his honesty of purpose, though many of his acts, I think, are unwise and not consistent with the wishes of the parly leaders.”

BECK’S VIEWS.

The President’s Appointments —.Where Congress Failed. Senator Beck is very much pleased with [he result of the labors of the Senate on ihe Presidential nominations, says a Washington correspondent. “There probably never were eight months of continuous session before in which there was so little difference of opinion, so little personal discussion, as there has been over the nominations of the President this session,” said the Senator. “Here is the end of the session, with all but about forty of the President’s appointments acted upon, and less than one per cent, rejected. Out of sixty-seven collectors of internal revenue sixty-four have been confirmed, and these officers are among the most important and are spread over a larger territory than almost any others.” When asked what he thought of the merits of President Cleveland’s appointments, the Senator said: “They have been very good. I think I know more about the Internal Revenue Collectors than any others. I have had charge of most of them, and I can say that they have been almost universally firstclass appointments, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue will toll you tho same.” “How are you satisfied with the work of Congress during the past session?” “Congress has failed in just one thing. It should have reduced taxation. The people demand that a portion, at least, of the burden be taken from their shoulders, and in this Congress has failed altogether. I will not say where the blame for this rests. I only say that we should have done it, and we have conspicuously failed. I will not say how it should have been done. I believe in reduciug the revenue, not only because taxation should be reduced but because I think we are reducing our national bank circulation too rapidly. We should endeavor to avoid any such sadden changes. If we continue to accumulate money so rapidly and pay it out for the redemption of the interest-bearing debt we shall soon have retired our entire 3 per cent, issue. If, as has been suggested, the banks were to hand in the bonds called, we will have decreased the interest-bearing debt, but we will have a large amount of money taken out of circulation and locked up in the

The President on the Surplus Resolution.

The President is reported by a Washington correspondent to havo said to a friend, who called on him, that his reason for not signing the surplus resolution was that, according to the Senate amendment, it placed

too much authority and power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the amount named to what extent the surplus could be reduced was enacting a law tbat, in his opinion, would be much worse than the present law. He takes the ground that as there is no' law upon the statute book permitting the reduction of the Burplus, the resolution would be unwise in instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to keep a surplus so large as $130,000,000. When asked why he didn’t instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay out the surplus with more rapidity and comply with the declarations of the party in its last National Convention, the President replied that Mr. Manning, the Secretary of the Treasury, was administering the duties of that office, and he alone was responsible for what was done.

The Late Gov. Tilden.

Among the great non-military men who have passed away in such numbers within a comparatively brief time, Gov. Tilden was undoubtedly the greatest He had acquired a hold upon the Democratic party such as no contemporary statesmen except Douglas had ever enjoyed. His mastery was certainly equal to that of Douglas, and had a broader foundation. He was not an orator in the sense that Mr, Douglas was. He had none of the “magnetism” that usually enters into the equipment of the popular chieftain. His qualities were of the solid and reflective type that are slowly recognized by the masses, but when once perceived constitute the strongest claim upon public attention, and yield to the pos - sessor the largest influence with his fellows. His place in the later councils of his party was not unlike that held by Jefferson after his retirement. Absolute confidence in his purity and almost absolute confidence in his wisdom resided in the breasts of fully one-half of the American people, and it may be said that Gov. Tilden commanded as much of the respect of the other half as it is possible for an inflexible partisan to win from his opponents. An inflexible but not a bitter partisan Mr. Tilden was. Through the trying period of the war he was an unbending Democrat. He believed that there could be no permanent peace on the American Continent without the Union, and accordingly his voice and influence were always in favor of military suppression of the rebellion. But upon all points within the range of party strife, and especially upon the vexed question of “war powers,” he was as stiff a partisan as ever, and when the war was ended he had risen from local to national fame by his persistent adherence to what he conceived to be the limitations of the Constitution upon the military power of the Executive. President Lincoln knew Mr. Tildea well, believed in his patriotism, and trusted him even in the darkest hours of the war. The secret of Mr. Tilden’s success in life as a lawyer, a man of business and a statesman was the thoroughness with which he did everything that he attempted to do. He never took anything for granted. He never went into court with a case until he had searched every nook and cranny of the law. He never made an investment until he had personally studied the last details of the business. He never went into a political campaign without looking after every individual voter. In the campaign of 1876 he took everything into account up to the closing of the ballot-boxes, and he beat his opponents according to the rules of the game. It' the election laws of the whole country had been like those of New York he would have been President of th» United States for one term, and probably for two. His calculations of means to ends were almost infallible, and nowhere were they more signally justified than in the legal fight against the Tweed ring, in New York City, and in his political fight against the same ring in the State at large. It was a maxim of his that honest methods in politics are the only ones that yield large results at the polls, and from this maxim he never deviated. —New York Evening Post.

The Republicans Still Ahead.

The Baltimore Sun prints some interesting figures, which, it avers, were taken from the official records, in regard to the number of Republicans in the departments at Washington. The exhibit is a very gratifying one—to Republicans. In the Treasury i lone, for instance, from which the Republicans were supposed to be pretty well weeded out, there are said to be twenty-five Republican chiefs of divisions. In the Interior Department some eighty Republicans have been left in possession of their old places and salaries, and comfortab.e salaries, too, ranging from $5,000 to $2,000 a year. The Stale. Army and Navy Departments are full of Republicans, and the Postoflice Department still has a large lot of the same old stock. Next we come to tho Government Printing Office and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, each with a Republican head and swarming with Republicans. Here alone are between twenty-five hundred and four thousand places not subject to the c.vil-service rules, and highly convenient for Democrats; but the Democrats haven’t got them. Finally, even General Black, who has been assailed bv the Republicans for his preference for Democratic subordinates, is said to have retained eight Republican chiefs of divisions, thirteen Republican medical examiners, and various other Republican employes. And yet a Democratic administration has been in j>ower for nearly a year and a half! —New York Sun.

Speaker Carlisle.

■ Speaker Carlisle said in an interview the other day that he thought the time not far off when public sentiment would compel Cougress to reduce the tariff. The Speaker said that he had no doubt that the next House of Representatives would be Democratic. The tariff would be the leading issue in the campaign. Mr. Carlisle denied the report that there are feelings of jealousy and hostility existing between himself and the President, and that he (Carlisle) i« engaged, with others, in a conspiracy to thwart the administration. Soldiers who entered the war whe.’* it begun, who did not go for a bounty and who served on insufficient pay, aud who suffered through years, should be pensioned whenever it can be proven they have received injury; but to tax people who have b mkrupied themselves in raising bounties for men who served but a few months or not at all, and upon such frivolous claims as the President has recently vetoed, is a double outrage. The President just now is exposing a shameless degree of demagogy that will be met with gratitude by every honest soldier and honest pension claimant, who is being dragged into disgrace by the thieveries the bounty jumpers are attempting.- -Indianapolis Sentinel.

A GREAT DAY FOR ERIN.

Two Immense Demonstrations at Chicago Addressed by Representative Celts. Dayitt Preaches Patient Endurance and Finertj Armed Resistance. There were two immense Irish demonstrations in Chicago on Saturday, the 14th inst. One at Ogden’s Grove, in the northwestern section of the city, presided over by ex-Congressman John F. Finerty, was addressed by Michael Davitt, Patrick Egan, and Alexander Sullivan. Another, at the Driving Park, in the western edge of the city, was addressed by Johu Devoy, of New York, and Fathers Toomey and Fanning. At the latter meeting resolutions were adopted alleging that serious evils exist in the management of the Irish cause, urging the necessity of selecting leaders who have the respect of all classes of citizens, and pledging earnest support to Mr. Pamoll. Both gatherings were attended by representative Celts in large numbers. Excerpts from Michael Davitt’s Speech I would rather by patient endurance, by suffering insult, by putting up with calumny and misrepresentation, plod on through all my life working for Irish national self-government than to gratify the natural promptings of the Irish heart to have revenge lor what Ireland has suffered in the past. | Applause, j The fight for Irish national self-government looks perhaps different in Ireland from what it does in Chicago. [Hear! hear!| It is very easy to establish an Irish republic 3,000 miles away from Ireland by patriotic speeches [applause and laughterj; but I assure you it is not at all an easy task on the hillsides and the plains of dear old Ireland. [Applause. I The defeat of Mr. Gladstone’s home-rule scheme is believed by many ardent Nationalists in America to be not an unmixed evil. I must say that the same opinion largely obtains in Ireland. The scheme proposed by Mr. Gladstone recognized the principle of national self-govern-ment for which the Irish race has so long contended. A Parliament in Dublin to manage Irish affairs appeals strongly to me as an Irish Nationalist to accept such a measure, and hope for time to remedy the other drawbacks of suoh a measure ; and, consequently, when appealed to by Mr. Parnell for my opinion, I agreed with him that we would not be acting in the interests of the Irish people if we did not advise them to accept and give a fair trial to Mr. Gladstone’s scheme of home rule. [Applause | The situation in Ireland to-day is such as may largely draw upon the patience and forbearance which I ask of my countrymen in America for the leaders and the people at home. Gladstone’s defeat gives powei in Ireland for a time to tho landlord garrison of that country and its English supporters, the Tory party. Many men in America may believe that this means the defeat of our policy and the overthrow of our movement. Well, such emphatically is not the belief of the lenders at home or of the Irish people. We do not think that tho movement started by tho Land League is at all impaired by the recent defeat in the House ct Commons. So long as we have cool heads and resolute hands to carry on the struggle it matters very little about one or more knock-down blows. We have become so accustomed to reverses in Ireland, our movement has so often arißen from defeat to smite its very overthrowers, that we are not discouraged or dismayed at having to begin again this winter the fight that has been going on without cessation during the last seven years. The overthrow of the Gladstone Government will change the scene of action from Westminster to Ireland. In the British Parliament Parnell has had the balance of power during the last few years. Therefore the struggle for Irish autonomy was mainly carried on there. Now the scene of action and strifo is removed to Ireland, where, notwithstanding the power of England, Irish national sentiment reigns supreme in an impregnable position. | Applause. | We believe that we can fight out the destiny of our country even without the aid of the sword. [Applause and “Hear, hear!”! In Ireland borrowing weapons from the constitutional armory of England and turning those weapons against herself in Ireland has made Irish national sentiment supreme within her borders and our cause to be respected throughout the civilized world. [Applause.] Mr. Sullivan has spoken some truths, which, I trust, will attract attention in England, It was not Mr. Parnell, it was not his followers, who called the dynamiters into England. All this was done by England, and if men here in America choose to fight for revenge, chcose to resort to retaliation for the wrongs inflicted upon them and their country, we cannot be to blame. It is England that is to blame. [Applause and “Hear! hear!"J I must say, however, that we in Ireland believe we can work out the destiny of our country, we can vindicate Irish national sentiment, we can realize Irish patriotic aspirations, without the aid of dynamite or any policy of that kind. We in Ireland must face the enemy and fight the battle of our country. [Applause and “True for you.”] We are the men in the gap. We have to run all the risk. We have to take the consequences, providing we make a false step. Therefore, we are the men, I think, who have the right to say in what way we, the people of Ireland, shall work out the regeneration of our country. [Applause and “Good.”] there is little account taken here in America of the terrible odds against which we have to contend at home. Don't you think the policy which has brought so much about is the best and the wisest policy for us to pursue? [Applause and “Yes.”l Anyhow, we are going to , pursue it. [“Good enough.”] lam certain that in a short time we will win this fight.

Finerty Differs from Davitt.

Chairman John F. Finerty, in the course of his speech, said Mr. Davitt had misconceived their pupose. They wanted them [the Irish in Ireland] to take all they could get and look for more. Did England or Mr. Davitt suppose that they would thrust any policy on them? If there was any way they could annoy England—keep her awake nights—they wanted to do it. He approved of what Mr. Davitt had done and of what Mr. Parnell had done. Said Mr. Finerty: Wo are glad to see Mr. Davitt here as the representative of that dear old country that gave us birth. Great God, gentlemen, we don’t want them to accept dangers that we don’t want to share. Our Christ said : "He that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father in Heaven.” Some of our leaders denied us in the House of Commons, but we won’t deny them. However we may differ in opinion, the glorious gospel of unity in aid of Ireland shall prevail. They should be aided with our swords and our pens, or in any other way we can help them. I shall be prepared for compromise when every selfish word shall be atoned for by England. Charity is grand, my friends; forgiveness is great, but England is not yet in sackcloth. We have forgotten that Gladstone was a hypocrite, a Pbarim e. Absolutely we no longer groan for the Earl of Spencer. Spencer has repented, my friends. He is a sheep, but still he is a kind of a black sheep. Great heavens, gentlenu n, it is impossible for us to stand under that flag and listen to those mild doctrines that Mr. Davitt gives utterance to! It will not always be in the power of England to dictate terms to Ireland. God grant the hour may come when in some broad line of battle our soldiers may he able to wipe out the stigma of the battle of the Boyne. Some of us may never see it. We are getting old, some of us. Let us hope that Ireland will never cease to resist. It is for this we think and toil, and our only hope is to lift up our flag, to establish a republic which will be presided over by a Parnell or a Michael Davitt. “I thought, Miss S., that you hated that flirty minx; yet you went up and kissed her.” “So Ido hate her, and that is why I did it. Look at the big freckles on her chin where I kissed the powder off.”

LEGAL ORATORY.

Lawyers’ Arguments and Pleas in the Case of the Chicago Anarchists. Able Speeches of Messrs. Ingham and Foster for the Prosecution and tho Defense. [CHICAGO CORRESPONDENCE,] The celebrated anarchists' trial continues to draw its slow length along. The taking of testimony was closed nearly a week ago, the floodgates of legal oratory were immediately opened, and ever since have continued to pour forth in a ceaseless stream into the ears of the }>atient “twelve men, good and true.” Mr. Frank Walker, Assistant State’s Attorney, marie the opening speech for the prosecution. He had abundant material to build bis argument upon, and he made good use of it. Having made a comprehensive statement as to the law in the case, and having quoted freely to sustain the claim that when a number of persons agree to commit murder, or advise othors to do so, the time aud place not being definitely determined on, the advisers or conspirators are guilty of the offense when committed equally with the principal, Mr. Walker proceeded to show from the writings and speeches of the principal defendants that they had organized a conspiracy of murder in this city, and that they counseled and preached the overthrow of thj existing social system by force. He pointed out with great effect that the defense had made no effort to disprove this charge of general conspiracy as laid down in the opening speech of the State's Attorney. On tho contrary, Mr. Salomon’s opening speech for tho defense was a virtual piea of guilty on this general charge. Coming from the general to the specific charge, Mr. Walker held that there was abundance of uncoutradicted testimony, some of which was supplied by the defendants’ witnesses, to prove an organized conspiracy for the murder of the police the night of the 4th of May. The evidence of tho State was not only not contradicted by the defense, but was, in fact, corroborated by some of tho witnseses examined in behalf of the prisoners' and by the arch-conspirator himself. Hpios' explanation of the publication of the warning of “Kuhe" Mr. Walker showed to be of the flimsiest character. The attompt of Spies to shift the blame on Fischer and Kau was denounced as traitorous aud cowardly. Parsons, Fiolden, and Lingg wore not forgotten, The appeals of Parsons to the workingmen to arm themselves, and Fiolden’s exclamation that “the skirmish lines have met,” and his exhortation to stab the law, to throttle the law, to kill it, were skillfully utilized in support of Mr. Walner’s position. In conclusion Mr. Walker said: “The most cruel thing in this whole case is the violent and unjustifiable attack made on the police by the defense. They attempted to prove that Capt. Bonfleld and his officers wore guilty of a most horrible design upon the lives of innocent men. I should have thought that the blood of those seven dead would have cried out against the accusation. The men who stood on that fatal night as firm as a rock, who never trembled, and who exhibited as much sublime courage as the pages of history ever showed, are traducod by socialists and anarchists. It is even charged that they fired first. Did they? Ask Barrett and Bholiun and Mueller and Hansen. Ask all those wounded heroes. Gentlemen, it is for you to decide. You stand now for the first time between anarchy and law. The foundation stone of the Kepublic has been attacked, and it is for you to say whether that Kepublic shall stand. The police did their duty at the Haymarket. They shed their blood for the low, and in their martyrdom anarchy was buried forever. ” Mr. Walker spoke for a day and a half, and was followed by Mr. Zeisler for tho defense, who consumed about an equal amount of time. He contended that the Haymarket meeting was a peaceable assemblage with which the police had no legal right to interfere, and denounced the police as a set of cowardly knaves and liars. He then pleaded for the more “energetic utterances” of Spies, Parsons, and Fielden, that their hearers were often of that class of laboring men who were ignorant because the amount of time required to earn bread for themselves and their families left them none in which to gain knowledge. In order to have the desired effect upon such an audience ordinary language would not suffice, and it was necessary to use emphatic figures of speech. Mr. Zeißler contended that the best testimony for the Stato had been purchased, that the witnesses committed rank perjury, and were not to bo believed . Mr. Ingham, for the prosecution, followed Mr. Zeisler, His speech was a masterpiece of oratory. Point by point he set forth tho damaging evidence against the prisoners, raising up the facts and acts of criminality out of the log of sophistry in which Mr. Zeisler had striven to envelop them, and exhibiting them in their block and rugged nakedness outlined against the light of truth, and reason, and order, and civilization, and common sense as tho peaks of a mighty mountain are outlined against a clear Bky. Dwelling first on the evidence as a whole, he Bhowed that each proven fact was not as a link In a chain of guilt, but as the strand of a cable which spanned tho whole tide of criminality. The defendants had sought the destruction of the law, but that law was strong enough to secure the punishment of those who sought to throttle it. Mr. Ingham then proceeded with an analysis of the general conspiracy, tracing its history, and ingeniously weaving into his narrative every important fact of the testimony. He dwelt on the fact that in the so-called “American group” there were not more than a score of Americans, and more than half of these were women and cranks .while the only dangerous members were Parsons and Fielden. The bulk of the anarchists were the offscourings of Continental Europe, who, though not yet citizens of this country—many of them, as in the case of Lingg, not being residents here for more than a twelvemonth —sought to subvert social order and establish the rule of a miserable handful of foreign anarchists by means of dynamite instead of the rule of the majority, Mr. Ingham traced the development of the Haymarket conspiracy, its careful planning, the utilization of the labor difficulties by Spies, the summoning of the armed sections to prepare for tho attack, the careful selection of the place for slaughter, the incitements to violence by Spies and his confederates Parsons and Fielden, and the subordinate but important parts which Engel, Lingg, Fischer and Schwab played in arranging the plan of attack and in providing the materials therefor. The arrangement and grouping of facts were admirable. Mr. Foster, of counsel for the defense, followed Mr. Ingham, and made an able, eloquent, and ingenious plea for his clients. He not only ignored the defense sought to be set up by Messrs. Salomon and Zeisler In their speeches, but repudiat id their methods and their theories. He did not do it abruptly, but he did it effectively. He did not make any effort to defend socialism, communism, or anarchy. On the contrary, he declared that socialism was dangerous, communism pernicious, and anarchy damnable. As an American citizen he deplored the vicious teachings of Spies, Parsons. Fielden, and Schwab. He deplored that they did not value their privileges as citizens, and that they did not put their talents to hotter use. The passages of his able speech in which he referred to these matters were the most eloquent and impressive of his whole discourse. Mr. Foster showed by his arguments that his policy was to limit the investigation of the jury to the evidence bearing directly on the charge made in the indictment. ' With a keen appreciation of the feelings of the American people not shown by any of his associates he knew that it would be worse than useless to try to excuse the incendiary harangues and editorials of his clients. He aimed to convince the jury that though Spies and his fellow-defendants had advocated the use of dynamite bombs, had given instructions as to their manufacture, had advocated the overthrow of the existing social system by force, all of which was outrageous and inexcusable, they were not on trial for those teachings and those plottings, but for a specific crime—the murder of Mathias J. Degan. It should be shown, Mr. Foster argued with great ingenuity, that the prisoners had conspired to throw the bomb which killed Degan, and that it was thrown in pursuance of their conspiracy by a confederate. Having thus narrowed the issue to the specific crime, Mr. Foster maintained that all the evidence about inflammatory speeches and bomb-manutacture was beside the question, though the court had not so held it. This was a bold defense to make, hut it was the only tenable one, and was moat adroitly maintained by Mr. Foster. His ingenious plea evidently had a marked effect upon the jury. 1 ft

THE COLORADO CANNIBAL.

Murrie.ing HU Companions and Feeding Upon Their Flesh—The Horrible Story Told by the Remorseless Wretch In Hie Own Defense. Alfred Packer, better known as “the Man-Eater,” was recently tried at Gunnison, Col., and found guilty of manslaughter on five counts as charged m the indictment. Judge Harrison sentenced the prisoner to forty years in the penitentiary, or eight years for each man it is supposed he murdered. The crime Packer is charged with is one of the most horrible on record, and it is probable more exeitoment was created over his acts of cannibalism at the time of their discovery than over any other crime committed in America during the last half century. During the early part of the winter of 1873 Packer, in company with five prospectors—lsrael Swan, Wilson Bell, George ftoon, Frank Miller, and James Humphreys—started from Bingham, Utah, to a new mining district in the Sau Juan country. The winter was severe and game scarce, and when the party reached the place where Lake City now stands they were out of provisions, suffering with cold, and crying for salt. Here they went into camp, and one night Packer murdered his companions, and for fifteen days lived off the flesh of the dead men. In the early part of 187 4 Packer made his way to Los Pinos Agency, where he stated that Bell had gone crazy with hunger and murdered the four other men while he (Packer) was out hunting for game, and on his return to camp Bell attacked him with a hatchet, and he was compelled to kill him in self-defense. Packer was arrested, had a preliminary hearing, and was confined in Saguache jail, when he escaped the same year, and was a fugitive until 1883, when he was recaptured at Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, going under the name of John Schwartz. His attempt to prove at the trial that he killed only Bell failed. He stoutly maintains his innocence as to the other four, and seems reconciled to liia fato, although he claims it is unjust. As told by the defendant, no story could be more excitedly interesting and horrible than the bare recital of how he and his live companions wandered aimlessly about the mountains without food, raving mad with hunger, eating their moccasins, willow buds, rosebuds, and finally devouring eac-h other. Then, after the death of the remainder of the party, the cold, unfeeling account of how he took flesh from the legs of his companions, boiled it in tin cups and ate it, has never been equaled in the history of jurisprudence in America. He admitted that once or twice his stomach refused to retain such a feast. Finally his will conquered the animal weakness, and he prepared the food and ate it without trouble. All these circumstances were listened to with the closest attention by the crowd assembled. It was only when the cross-ex-amination uncovered the weak points in the narrative that the witness testified to the impossible circumstances which he recounted that the truth of the novel recital was questioned. Then it was that the story of starvation was doubted. He testified as follows: “My name is Alfred Packer I have been in the mountains for many years. I was in Utah in 1873, and workod in the mines there till I became leaded. |This is a form of lead colio peculiar to the men employed in the vicinity of the smelters in Utah aud Nevada.j Then 1 came to Salt Lake, and there I worked a while in a smelter. I was still afflicted, and in the fall of 1873 I joined a party at Bingham Canyon for a prospecting trip to the San Juan country, in Colorado Territory. I traveled with Mciirew, to whom I gave *3O for my passage, and I was to work for the balance oi my fare. I had *25 left. We reached Dry Creek, near Chief Ouray's camp, tn January, 1874. Here the party separated, Israel Swan, George Noon, Frank Miller, James Humphreys, Shannon Wilson, Bell and myself started from Ouray's camp tor the San Suan. It was cold, the snow deep, aud travel difficult. We gave up our boots aud tied blankets about our feet. We had to do it to keep them from freezing. Old man Swan gave out first. He was old and in thin flesh. Our bread gave out on the ninth day. We had ouly eaten one meal a day during the last few days, because it was storming and blowing so that we could not see a few feet before us. We wore keeping up toward the summit of the hills, aiming tor the Los Pinos Agency. Beil first gave up his moccasins, and we mode one meal of those, boiling them. I next gave up mine, aud then the others did so. Hell had a hatchet. Noon had a gun, but I carried the gun about half the time. “I think we must have been out in the mountains several weeks after running out of food. The men were getting desperate, and Bell seemed to be getting crazy. His eyes protruded from his head. While the others complained and talked, he remained silent. The men cried for salt. They did not usk for food; it was only salt, salt. We had been eatiug willow and rosebuds for several days, having found some in the valley near the lake, where Lake City now stands. We Dad run out of matches, aud carried fire witn us in a coffee-pot. One day we saw a game trail upon the mountains, and it was agreed that I sliould go on the trail, as I was the strongest. I took the Winchester rifle aud searched. In the morning I left the men crazy with hunger. In the evening when I returned I had found a bunch of rose bushes and had a good dinner from them, but no game. I felt stronger. As I approached the fire I saw Beil bending over the blaze cooking Borne meat. I spoke to bim, and immediately ho rose and started for me with a hatchet. 1 ran back down the bluff, but 1 fell and while down I shot him through the side as he approached me. He fell and the hatchet dropped by me. I snatched it up and threw it at him aud struck him in the head. 1 went up to the camp again and found that the rest of them were dead and that the meat Bell was cooking was flesh from Humphrey’s leg. I staid in camp the rest of tbat night. -1 then made my camp off a short distance, and stayed there for possibly fifteen days. During this time I was crazed with hunger, aud cut tbo flesh from Bell’s leg and boiled it in a tin cup and ate it. It made me very sick. My stomach whs empty and weak, and 1 vomited very violently that night. After this I frequent- ' ly ate ttie meat, aud several times I tried to get out of the country. I would climb up the mountain, but, failing to see any hope, I would return to camp and again cut the flesh from the limbs of the dead men and eat it. I was about forty miles from Los Pinos Agency, and I did not know tho exact distance. This was along in April.” Returning to those parts of the narrative which he omitted, Packer said: lam acquainted of robbing the dead. Yes, I did rob the dead when I cut the flesh from the bodies, preparing to start over the range in search of civilization 1 then took *3 from Swan’s pocket, a SSO-bill from Bell, and *lO from Miller. Here is where I did wrong. I robbed the dead, but I know the money would de my dead comrades no good, and I, being yet alive, thought the money might help to save my lifo. lam willing to take the blame of robbing the dead, for it was wron«