Semi-weekly Express, Terre Haute, Vigo County, 11 February 1896 — Page 2

411 the adjournment of court and wflU*re» fn.Try tula argument 'this morning. He flakes no perso-naH a'titaioks om amy per90m active to the prosecution and the attorneys for itlie ief enee say he te making an able amd logical effort In behiaM *f his eEtenfts. Mr. Beasley'e lungs sflood thA test better than toki legs and mucfh $f t!he ib£me while be was talking he wais •JltJfclng on the court repertoire table, which stood In firom.t of "the jury box. Ke spoke as follows:

Attorney John Beniley's Argument. 33y permission oif the cou?^.. Gentlemen of 'the jury: I am here to

KgcrU'#9

the law and falcts of this case.

I am here to discuss the law and the facts oif the cage as a lawyer to the Jury, I iam not here to win the applause of the people in this room. I am not Iter® to appeal to your compassion for t'he parents of "the dead girl n*or your •ympathies for the defendants on trial.

The law, gentlemen, I regreit to say,

(that there lis some mystery concerning j^nar

her death, and that softiefbody aacuses

gome of the neighbors of th'at girl of the

crime and t'he persons accused stand

even a civil

su^°en^orjvnt,^tha^they

qS^ndL'toat6toln examhStio un-

me off the good people otf th'at county, and I say, I "hope, for the fair name of [Parke 'county Ithia't Mr. Puett speaks (only for himself alone when he comes lie re and says that he not on«ly counsels and upholds assassination and but that he ,wishes the had more of them,

Responsibility Besting Upon Lawyers. (Geintlem'en of ithe jury, a solemn and grave duty Testis upon, your shoulders in itlhis case. None tue less none the less grave responsiblTiityrests upon my Shoulders. You are eworii to try thliis caise according to t'he law amid evildence. I aim sttvom, as my brother, Mr.

Puett,

rou

is sworn, 'to support 'tui-e con-

etiitution and the laws of t'he country and 'to faithfully discharge my duties as an attorney im this case. AJS fa-r as myself, I shall endeavor to be fair in the discussion of this oase. I admit ibliat I 'have some zeal and some interest to the case. My zeal may possibily lead cne from 'tine paths of truth—I hope not. If I make any statement in t'hia case with reference to the evidence -that ls inot supported by the evidence, I hope you will Utterly disregard it. We have •jjo discussion, gentlemen, to mislead you jji 'tihis case. I would not if I could. I know I could not if I would.

What ds tihe issue you are sworn to try? If I may be of any assistance to **ou to brushing aside the rubbish, and jhovifng aside the stuff that has been dragged in (here for some purpose, and we know not why, I hope to be able to fcelp you to get down to -the real issue. irtd to determine the law and the facts jus appi'icaMe to thai: issue. I will tell jrou first what you are not sworn to try iLnd 'then I will endeavor to fell you wtfrtut you axe sworn to try. I will tell

fifSt wlhait the issue is not and then will fendciarcor to tell you whait it is. My fritend Mr. Puett, with a great deal of stoHl aired & vast deal of ingenuity, Sftid "tftuait thte first thing you are to try to wither oar inoft Clara Shanks came to (her death by drowning.

Gtovtlteanen of the .Jury, that is not the first, nortihe last, nor the middle thing. You twe TiTCht 'here to try the question a® to whether Clara Shanks at her death was a pure girl. That is not the fe«ue. you ame not here to try the Issu® fts to yrtoefctoer Clara Shanks and her people fiiaJd a quarrel on the day she led home. ThaJt is not the issue. You are not here to try the question as to whether Dan BhaJik^, the boasted assays fci, and who jgjMd th'e wudairfty stand up -«n the witness stared land sgy ^o in a rtippajit h,tMA boasting way, is a brave boy. You pot here ito try the issue as to

Dan Kellar is a coward and a

brtifte, as my friend Puett denominated emd c"hairacter5zed Ihim. I will tell you itfhjat you are here to try, and want to gay tor the whole oase, for our side of itMfl case, for the defendants, whose itves and iibcrtiefS yooi bOJd In your HEund, that tJbe oaidy issiSe you &t& sworn {try Ss the Wne tissue we are feaudy and '4 4» meet. "We &aVe r6ver fo* on«

moment sought to eva*ie it, to oever ft up or run away from tt. The Issue you are eworn to try is Whether or not Dan Kellar amd Nannie Kellar, amd Maggie Kellar, on the 6th day of "July. 1895, killed and murdered Clam Shamks.

Issues That Are to be Met.

Now will you stay with that? "Will you renwenber that, gewtienrtsn May I repeat: the only one, all prevadliag* and all important. Issue in this case is whether or not 3am Kellar. and Maggfe Kvifasft amd Namnle-' 'KfeSaiV

?on'

j^half when I say th'at.

If-

der^aS separate and apart from each i«ntertam a reasonable doubt under the other where lawyer and layman alike |®vdd«nce *n the case, amd under (the law may Lsk them questions, hearsay, lead- as it as given you by the court, you Ing OT otherwise, and ithey answer them, and that the only constituted officer otf the law who is 'a par'ty to that investigation dismisses tjie case, (discharges the defendant's and concludes that they are innacent, anid that then it reima.'ns for hired counsel, detectives, lawyers, doctors, busy-bodies, to stir up a feeling in that cotmimunlty and to demand the prosecution otf those people and tio hound them and persecute them, drive them away from home, is to my mind one of the reproaches of the law. That an attorney at Haw, acting under his oath to support t'he (constitution of the United States and the state of Indiana and (to faithfully and honestly discharge (his duties as an (attorney at law, a man of experience, 'and ability, a man of sense and judgment, a man of character in the community 5n which he lives was assumed to come lintJo this court in this county 'and to stand up before this jury, and with all the fervor of bis nature would .not only advise and counsel mo'b law and assassination, (but would stoat over it and boast over It is to my mtnd cue of the reproaches of the law. I hope .my friend (Mr. Puetlt did weft speak for the people •when he comes .here and tells you that he would th'at we had more men in this community Tike Dan Shanks. I do not profess to speiak for Parke county, I never lived Where in my life, buit I know

the feth

day of JiOy, 1885, kta&f fehd murdered Cla&i SftatikS That to ifatoj i&sue. That Issue we are rtot only ready and wilting, •but glad to meet. W« dp! iw^t- Meek So evade'it.'We do dot seek to get away from it. We do not seek to cover it uip yve do not ask you to lei it get out of your mind for a single moment, j,

Am'd, getntlemtm, liiste/n to what I tell you, we are hot. .here to attempt "to lead

J^S^-ESSe T£ ta£i\f iury here on that^ue presents to my mind, as it has been de*- |'b'

afs

veloped, one of the greatest reproaches l^^es of rhetoric. orHgurative speech. I have ever known to the law. The fact jury knows, as one of the irvcifhat three innocent people, husfhand and trial, that when the eviWitfe and sister, may toe driven from jdence was closed speaking for these deitfheir 'homes -wi't'h a shot gun in the jfftndants, aJl these d-efendants who are bands of an assassin, despoiled of their on trial, we said: "Your ihonor, we are little profit, humiliated and disgraced iwilling to submit this case to the jury, in the eyes of t'he world, their motives lupon the .Instructions oif the court, withi impugned and their character im- out argument." Amd- gentiem-en, my peached by lawyers, anddoctors, and de- jfri-e-nds at the right (here, ©aid on Saiturtectives, without any adequate redress, id ay. for some purpose known better to ito my mind is one of the reproaches (himself perhaps than anybody else, asOif t'he law. The fact, gentlemen, that a |serted to this jury that we would enpoor deluded Woman can be taken from i-d'eavor to sway you from the path of the jail of a sister county and brought fluty by our eloquence, and rhetori'o, and idown here with the strong arm of the figures of speech. OenPiemen, who was tow under the pretense of an attempt to that wan-ted to attemipt at least to gett at the truth in this case and a lead the mtods of the jury away from 0tory put Into her mouth by some one, |£he i®suies of this case? It was not t'he I know not whom, and driagged from her -laefendamts. throat as it came Ifrom the mouth and lips of that woman oo t'he witness stand (to convict people charged with murder

oratory, or the

If, gentlemen of the jury, when all of the arguments are made and th'e instructions of thie court are heard, as

woman who Is isens-ible. practical, honest men, you bela to my (mind one a nroifessea to 'lliev,e beyond any reasonable doubt that ifa physician, I profe^ional man, who |^e defendants are g-uilty of tihe crime }ias the 'health and the lives and every- ch&i-ged aga:.nst them go to your jury thtog that (man h^lda sacred. In his write your verd.ot, bring it into hani would come upon the witness court.and let it be read, and let the stand, under a solemn oath to tell the'judgment of the court be pronounced truith and nothing tout the 'truth,»as he /U'pon them. We ask oiothiimg more. That ©Would answer to the Almighty God, and much we (have a right to demand, linault the IntelHgence oif every man on I It is, I say, then, upon the law and this jury, and of the court which pre- jupon tfhle fiacts in the case, and nothing sides over this trial, land make such what I may say, and 'nothing that my statements tas Dr. Vancleave made and friends on the other side may say, and go from t'he court roam unwhipped and ,,nothing th'at my associates may say, unpunished is to my mind one of the japeaJking for these defendants, unless it (reproaches o(f the law. The fact, gentle- is fey way of dl lustra tin of ellucidatioin men, thait a poor girl, they have said, ofMhe testimony as it came from the and I have no d'o'ufbt it 'is true, I hthpe It wibn-eis-aes, ous'ht to move you for one !is true, comes to ber death in a peaceful rnoment. I do not aisk you for your community in t'he -rural disttfiJOts and

Syirnpathy

for Dan Keller and Nannie

«d Maggie Keltar. If you be-

eve)

:ig

d-er the evidence, that t'hev are

]tyi dQ no ask you that for one

si,ner,e m,om!e,nt_ Thla,t ls way th^se

their ground, with)out even betag_ ar- :,a,eif,enl(!.ainlta ,hore and place the rested, .without proces^ that they

icase in

y°ur

^a'n,is-

'^Peak on their

however, on thfe' other h-aind, you

should giw 'tihem the benefit of th'at doufbt. If you ihaive a reasonable dO'Ubt, or amy one of you entertain a. reasonable doubt of the gufi'lt oif these defendants, them we say, on the other 'hand, thiat ihowisver compa'ssioin-you may feel for tiha.'t old mother and father, you ishould not let that .move you for one .minute away from the paths of your duty.

Concerning the Kellar's Testimony. Why, getatlemiein, IMr. Dam Shamks' mefhod cf disposing of thfe sortt of thing isri't t'he only innovation that my friend Puett would drag in to our system of jurisprudence. Simoe the foundation of the earth down to th© present, it has oevter (been regarded in the his tory,I have never heard it suggested in the halls of legislation, I mever (before heard it fall from the lips of ati attorney at law, that women ought to be dragged out of their homes, out of the elevation of tihieir ©anotlty, as God created1 them and intended tlhey should be, and dragged into oourt and put into the jury box amd compelled to listen to the filthy, and disgnjjstiing sort Of stuff to which your mother a.nd your sister would1 be com/pelled to listen if ithey were compelled to «it to a jury box.

I have higher regard for womanhood than my friend Mr. Puett. Cam It be that St has ocume to this that they ai»e afraid to itmst twelve honest metn from Vigo county, amd tihey want to put women in here, as they say, wltlh tihei'sr higher ®e-nei'bilitile». to try men? 3od ifoilbiid tihat th-e time shall ever come whan my wife Shall ,be dragged into a court and put down into a jury box to Oiear the kind of evidence that ®uoh trials as itJh'ie necessarily brings before jurfles. Wlhat one of you would ,wamt to apeak to that wotmam who would seek to get a, (place on the jury ito 'hear such a 'trial as this? What one of you would want to ibring your mother •and put hter im t'he jury box and let iher li-sten amd see and hear the things that are introduced fim a trial of this kind? What one of you would ask your sister to do anything of that kind My friend IMr. Puett—I know total too well to beMev for a minute that he would have 'his wife, or his mother, or his sister, occupy a position of that kind.

No man. can have a, higher regard for womanhood than I. No mam thinks fore of a mother tharn I, and no mam (ha® more right think well of a mother thain I have, nor of a sister. But, gentlemen, it is mot the kind of regard that my friend Mr. Puett feels 8f he wants to degrade womanhood to the 'position of which toe speaks.

Speaking far these defendants, not only Dan Kellar, but his wife amd his sister, I am prepared to say, that we are neither ashamed or afraid to submit 'their oase and their Interests into the ha»nd« of twelve good a.nd true men. Th»e tribunal that 'has beem constituted and that has (been recognized and regarded as thef protector of the rights of men. and of "the interests of people charged with crime from the foundation of tihe earth to the present day.

Reviewing: the Law in the fan*. Geihtlemen of the jury, following as well as I may the logical order of the argument, I will endeavor to assist you 4f I "ban before discussing the facts Of this case to determine what the law i?. It was en-fcirely proper that counsel reprecemting the state sihouid indicate to the jury, and tadioate to lis. the law amd tCieir theory of the law as tlhey understand St to be Applicable to ttoe facts of this casre. in pursuaftce of that Mr. Puett took occasion to refer to some oases and read from the law books decisions of our own oourt upon these questions which he regtards as being vital questions of faw an this case. I sun not going to say of my brother attorney that he purposely misled the jury as to the law. I fcm not -going to -say that he purposely read a part of extract or paragraph of the decisions of the oourt, amd omitted to read ofthefrs of the same opinion that were necessary to a complete understanding of the opinion. Btft I am going to say that, for wheftever tpurpose ot motive, the fact is, thiat the extradt whUSi my frjend tmA fretm the ibook, t7vi law wMch Im «d read, didn't

fMM BiSiS

give the Jury a ts&r under?* tending -at' what the Saw to, Ml it is written in tbe book regard5m« ttoe issues in this csase. Now let us oee. He first read from th4 74th Indiana, the case of Garfield Vs. State. The opinion (begins on pa«e 60. My friend read from pages 62 *nd 63. My purpose 4s to •how you wh*t tie facts were In e©ch of these catfcw, and "Wliat the oourt decided in each, of the cases, and then the jury can determine wtoat the law -is. In many instances in citng these authorities my friend didn't re&d the argumient of the court leading up' to conclusions, and the conclusion in everyJoase is the law of the -case. If you understand whfet I mean we go? through a trial, the evidence fa intro-, duced on both ^ides, the arguan^nt of counsel lis heard, the case is appealed to tlie Supreme Coirrt.

Whea the c&se

gets up there it is brtetfled oit the other side, we file a brief on our ffide, telling what we think the l'aw is in the Case, the Supreme Court in piassinig -upon !that always take up the argument on the respective sides, and finally they come 'to a conclusion of. the law of the case.. The argument of t'he Supreme Court, for •t'he purpose of arriving at a conclusion, is not the law of that case, or any case, but the concfluyion reached 'by the Court is the la/w of the case. What I say cs It-hat my friend Mr. Pue?tt saw fit to read the argumenit of the Suprerrie Court rather than the conclusion^ and therefore rather than read the law of the case. (Hare the "speaker read frotm a number autlhorities it'ouChing upon tihe laws of circums-tamtHl evidence. He devoted coftslderaible /time to the discusstom of tto'alt 'famous Shepherd case,, and ciited thie parts of it omi'tted by Mr. Puett In ihis argument. He claimed t'haf by making these omissions Wie lawyer had sought to mislead the jury by withholding from ilt tihe conclusions reached by the Supreme Court. He claiimed that' in hiis lengthy reference to 'the Mitchell case, Mr. Puett read oniy those parts calculated to aid the (prosecution amd ehowied that the ruling,, as am etttirety, was favorable t)o the defense. Leaving tihe (Shepherd oase, Mr. Beasley referred to tihe following au-thor-itties, w'hldh, toe said, had be&fi Citod •by tihe attorney for the state and read in pajit as was dome to tihe She-ptherd oase: "Wdde vs. 'State, 71st Im.dlauTa Bradley vs. ©tate, 7'lst Iindiama- Slheip-hea-d vs. Sftate, 64tlh Indiaina 103d Ind(lT. ama, page 551 Binns vs. Sitate, 6Gth Indiama: Sumner vs. 'Sitate, 5tih Blackford, page 581-82 104th Indiana, page 467 102d Indiana, pa.ge 28 (citing 66th and 9Qt)h.Indiana) 29th Indiana, page 39a. An Instance of Olrc.umst#ntl»l Krlrt«iii«of,

After readinig and exp\alni/i»g -the •above authorities, thes peaker con-tin-upd: I now refer you to a decision in itihe Supreme Court—oplmSon by Judsge Mitchell, now deceased, to (tine 126tih Indiana, beginmllng at page 47, the case of Oavsmder vs. State. I call the court's attention im aidvance to (tine fact thiait itbis was 'not a Oase of murder. Thia was not a case Where anybody's lilfe was at stake, but was dimply a charge at burglalry, wtoere ithe sentence wtas two years.

The appellant wafe convicted on a charge of 'burglary and sentenced (to two

years' imprisonment in the state's prison. The only question requiring ooinsideratlkm is wheitiher or not the 'evid«nce jusitified the verdict of guilty."

Now, listen), "The only question! requiring consideration is Whether or not tihe evildemoe justifies the verdtot of guilty."

T'hat wfais noft in a trllal court, by twelve men, who saw the witnesses amd heard them testify. It wais when it had gome to tihe Supreme Court attid when added to t'he weight of -t'lue teisfeimony of ithe witnesses was (the weight and 'the judgment and the conscience of it!he twelve men wtho 'had tried it, 'amd the tr.M court btelow—the trial judge— Ih'ad passed upon it, gen'tleman, and gave it (the weight of toils judgment amd conscience, aifter twelve men Uke you In a jury box. As I remember it, it was a jury trite.1.

The confession ite frankly and justly made 'by tihe ie#aimed attorney general (tlhalt the evidence its not conclusive of appellamlt's guilt but a forcible argument is a/dmlltted' to stoow tlh'at there are numerouis •ciTcums'tla.noes fn proof wtoMh ooin'ofde with1 guilt. It is, of course, ooncedied that /the evidence Is wholly cHrcumstamtial, 'tfhiere being not even ia euggelstioin thait tlheire is any direct proof taipli/ca'tjimg tlhe appellant. We quite agree that there 19 evidence Wihicih, (if believed by the jury, coimcildes with ithe guUit of the accused. Tlhte, ihow«ver, falls far short of fuHfill'lng tihe requiretm«nts of 'the law in order to warrant a oQnvlct!!bn on cfrcumstamitM i^vfr. denice ailone. As been well saJJd: "Wtofle cirounnatamtlal evidence is, im Its nature capable of itlh* tolghest degree of moitafl cer(baliaty, yet experience lanid •authority bo't'h wdfrnooilalh us that It dB a epecieS of evidenoe tihe application of which One uifcmostt cati^ilon and vig'flaniCe sbtouffd used."

Evidence Should be Conclnslve. It ha® been declared -ttoie law of this state ever slnce .the decision in Sumner vs. S tatte, 5 th Blackfd.rd, p. 579, that circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for a oonvictiom ought to be of a conclusive (tendency tihat isi, its Itendency ougtot to be not only to convince the minds of it'he jury Of the guilt of tttoe defendants, (but to exclude every supposition- inconsistent wBth ihi® guil t.

The tirue teat by wMJh to determine the value of circumstiantial evidenQe, in .respect to its sufficiency to warrant a conviction in a crimi'naJl case, is not Whether ithe proof establishes circumstances wtoioir-are consLstent or which coincide to'iith tihie by potJhesls of the guilt of .th'e accused, bu:t whether the clrcumstances, sajtlsfactoriiy established (are of So conclusive a character and point so surely and nonerrlngly to the guilt of t'he accused' as to exclude every 'hypothesis of Innocence. The force of circumstantial evidence being exclusive in Its character, the mere coincidence of a given number of circumstances wltih the hypothesis of guilt or that fluey would account for, or concur wiith, or render iproba'ble the guilt of Che accused is mot a -reliable or admissible test, unless the circumstamoeis rise to such a degree of cogency and force a», In the order of natural causes and effect,

exclude, to a moral certainty,

every otiher hypothesis except tfhe single one of guilt. (66th Ind., 428, Gillette's Criminal (Daw.) The proof must noft only oofoolde witfh the toy-pot iiesis of guilt, but .ft tnust be inconsistent with every other nationaa conciuaon. Moreover, where circumstances wthich tend to support the hj-p^LheSis tof g»uilt are ajcjountfd for, and explained consistently with innocence. It is a necessary conclusion (ttoat to tfoe ext«nt that i/be explanation assumes 'the degree amd force of tihe tacriirftihating bircumstaiices, the latter are weakened neutralized. So, too, «dtopftlng tl guagfe of Chief Justice ehaw:

Thus Judge MStSiell of It da t. adopts itlhe opinion of CMef jusaoe Shaw of the Massarihusatts cour'tB, and I believe no gentlemen WJM queetkrti It Ufflit amy brighter tntocte, any buiffhter jiiTtata, j*ever sat upon ttlSe beawA of ft Supc^ftite Count 0Mt Chief Jusfltoe StiWW «f ttoe MteusHadhuesatfes ooairt and Ohtef

MStcJwfl df t3t* lolSBan* Oouiit.

TEftRE HAUTE EXPRESS. TUESDAY MORNING. FEBRUARY 11, 1896.

Now tMSu* otf "Ijf aur «ne fiwst wge* esaaey to ttoe caA^oskm is wholly |nroonisCstent WSUb fete Ihypgtlieste of fce yiailt of ttoe aocused, it bretaks tih« chaiki of dircumStamtlai evfdeavae upon whikih tiw Jnferen.ee defpteSnfe and, howev^tf plajuafble or apps«re»tly conclusive tihe other cdroumstjajnoas niay bfe, fire crtairge must fall^" -j

I know yw will pardon- oae wtoen I read tto*a)t paragraph agato. It Is Ihe concluatonr of rttoe '-wfiodie matter. It, Is ithe decSskm of not only our court, twet •ahfe ooart ofvMafis4ucdtu»ettai. "If amy ang factmecessary 'to "tftws oomcltrsAam Is wtoolly fooam»®tfetft with 4We •Hjt?c!ihegJB ctf 'Che gullt of thie accused, It breaks 'Che chaiki otf dlrCumsta-nit'JaJ icvldence upotn Which ttoe tofenenice depends and, fhowetver plaiaslble or appareinitly oomcJuailv^ ithe otJh«r cdrcum^UaoDces may be, ithe Charge must fall."

All UWa't xle'ciBictn I wiill not read, and ttoe genitlemem are alt (liberty to read ilt all, a/nid' geft ail there its to ilt. The oaee was reversed because 'thie evidence Sin tfhiait case did root meet tihe tast. It had bad tihe san'Ct'ibn of twelve man. amd it 'had 'had the samttttan of the trial count below, and yet itfhSs court sifted 'It out a.n»d analyzed fit a'nd put t'he yaird etick of 'tihe tow on at, and 'the leaamed judge said it does ntoit come up ito ttoe standa'M. Here is a cai3e of ciircumstamti^ail evJdemce. It is admitted thait some of "hie facts wetre itncoinsLateinit wiOh innocence, but ttoey dild maft all of them, every one of tfhem, point so conclusively, so unerringly, ito t'hie guilt of the defendamit that they migiWt not be expllftilraed—some one mighft not be expla'itned upon a toyRottoesife co nSlste'nt with innocence. Yoii will notice the Supreme Court s&ys 'that toas beem the Taw of Inid'iama ever •sirrjee t!he decision in itihe 5th Blaickf., which Mr. Puett read, and nlhioh I read. It 'has beem ifflie Balw

t/h at catse. RfvJesrlng' Fncts fn the Case. I come now to the fac'ts of the case It is claimed by the jfendtan'ts are proven

:Beicause

There to mo evidence by amybody whKever toe aid a .wofd £rctea* tihait womani (/Maw. Kellar) that stoe ever Ibel'ieved or claimed' t)hia t/ her to ia»baiMd and Clara IS'h'ariks toad) ibeen guilty- of juny crimln'al initiim'acy. WtoiaJt M.rit. ,(N.aminle Kellar ttaid was ttoat (Clara iwaisjtoo great cm lam. And ttoe very finsit time she ever -mentioned Jt to Mr$l. tSihamiks, Mrs. ©h'amites «a ys toerself thaft Jslhe told toer. wto'a fehe imeanit that, ^hc toad been' flatting with Dam itlhalt slhe had! ibeein thirowiimig kieeets thait fall® totad toeien .taaJkimg ffit oonvenieiut to meet total- in thfe toighways tlh'alb sto)e (had taken hold of toil® tstooulderd to 'ttoe ihouse, perhaps omioe. You tomaw, amd I know, that tihe very ifirsit comvensaitiom 'ttoa't the two woimen ever toa)d, ttoait (Mrs. KellaT said that isihie wisus too great Dan, amd expliained wtoatt she meamt by ttoat. No-^ body pre bends tihait 'Xen Kellair ever ©aid to (amy living (humiaini Ibeiimg, or even intlmalted to atnybody, thait fije toad teem •crimtimally lmti/mate wltlh .tlhiat girl. Om t'he contrary, toe said to Dan IS'hanke, br,olther of (ttoe gM, wlhen ttoey toad a oomiversajtikxni at Kellar"® home wlhen that ibrave iboy, Of wh^m. tmy friiemd speaks, wemlt over ito Dajji Kellar's and 'ttoey iwemtt out to the barti .lott wtoem ttoe wom'en were having a family quarrel, Dan Kellar told ttoa young .mam, all thiatt •had occurred that toe could not ibellp what 'tihe girl was doing and' he was mat to blame for lit, .but ttoat stoe -had mot .been discreet.

Touching Clara Shanks' Conduct. The evidence is Mir. ©bamtsbury, ttoe state's witness, wtok saitltgfied himself amd didinAt prosecute this case, says oil ithe Witness stand tltoait at the court of fn^uiry, wtoem ariked abouJt 'bhait, 'that Dtaift Kellar said' tihe giirl toad beem iodiscreet she toad done .ttoose little thihligs t(ha»t toe could not toelp flit ibut-toe dlldmi't believe tto^t aflie ever meant amy•th'toig wrong Iby i't. •S^ gemtfleoiiems I challenge you mow, and itlfose who speak after m«, I ohalehge you now to ref^r

TO.

tihe wibness

who testified ttoat anybotdy-on t'he side of 'tihe defense evar clalaraed ttoat Clara Stoomks was anyttodmg but & Virgin amd a pure girt, iH 'the G&n&e of (Mr. Fueft pn^t it. Nat one of these -d^fenda/n'ts evfer Ch&iftged anything1 eisfe arid if the glifFs cSiasttlty has be^ih ctiMlanged, #t ."h as bean ctoallentered aiftd brugtot to toea* iby ttoe (repredenita'WV® of Wie sitate and •those 'who assumed to sfcie&Jk for her. WSfe¥e iflte -wfeft pttre. (I fbeiM&ve slbe was a g4#l gvtteriSy, am-^"ifcn»3W If tihe girl's g^c*5 old m^hef- ibedl* ittoe fcfutlh Ctoe twaa not a per-feat ctotid by amy itmieana.

I knioftv ftWart rtue d9a win obey (her onrfthef. I know tfcbit Old mdthCT tflti wettlt to

her cha.mfter, aifid: tSfce o®8y taAtuwufitMi agtttovt h«r partty and elte*ttty «o*ne* thes* ifi«n wh» witeiM to

mm In h€t quRWWl tn her home rtftjfet If she bad dtoae wUat Dan Kellar wanted h?r

of Indiana It wais the law of Indiaina 11'ar hlad mad'e any indecent proposal to w»hen the d'ecisiiom was announced "her, if be had ever made any improper M.r. Beasley here read ttoe entire decls-! Advances 'to her, that Instead of going ton found itn tihe 2Sith Indiiajia, om page wtoetre she wouffd be in his company and 395, and gave hiis view of ttoe 'law In

They claim thaJt the conduct of the Keliiars^pn t'he afteirn'oon of July 0th amd thte hext day, aintf aflter tihat, Was fintfonsli'tent with the'ir imnocence, wias unnatural and wta» lnicr!imi'natting In its chiaraJc'ter. They dTai.m that they to'ave made threats. They ©lajim tihait they (have made •s'aatem'enits an/d declaration's. They claim thlalt certain physical facts and candUtituns ipoiinlt tlo ttoe guiilt of t'he'se defendants. They cl'aita thla't the oonduidt of the Shlanks family and thefiar comveinsations point tto t'he .guilt of these deifendiants. They cllaim that the dond'uet Qif t'he g|irl henseflf polnlt to thie gulillt oif t'hiese deiferidlain't's. They claim 'tto'at (ttoe charadt'eir of the g'irl was such t'hiait i't pfoinjt's to ttoe guilt oif these d'efendlan'ts. [Let us looik a't Itto'ese to the Inverse order in iwhfdh I harve stated, and leti us see whleteher GMriis Shanks, as S'he sltiandls Ibefioire ttofs jury, wlas of subh ch'araciter and such a disposition thait 'it is nto't reasonable to .believe anylth'img exJce^t that on the day she disappeared she (went iflo the htouse of these defendants and wtas killed. It Is 'said on betolahf oif the 'gM t'hiait she was a pure •g'iW, 'and I have no doubt it was true—I hope tt is true— and we are molt here fo qu'es'tiOn that i't is true. Dan Kellar never questioned th'at lit i3 true. These defendants never questioned t'hat it Is true. The Sh'anks siafld Mr. Puett put ft, and when 'he sa!?d 'thait Mrs. Nannie Ke»llair accused Mrs. Sihah'k's daughter wl'th Qrfmlinal intfmfaJey wTth iDaai Kell'air, he must to'ave known tole stated thiait (wtolteh the evidence Would not aus'Ualn,

to db tiWt D«a» Keflar'e witfe

iwtjufid have h&(F ground to ba jealous. These genfcleimen drew oat of the that) at of th'te g'JiU'a mother thiat th* girl siaQd, If liiad dbxve wtaihlt Pan KelUar waited me to Jo Wb Wife would ltave had cause to be jealous.

Gerttt^men, ft «Uat be tn», she was not a pure girl and a good girl. Cfarta. SWanks kneiw thait Dan KeWswr had been attem.pftfing' ito take advantage of h«r, j.f Claiia ShfeunBcs kniaw that ttoat man Wad been dlttemiplttog to wronr hex, Oiama ®hank» knew that Dan Kellar had toeen a'tfteimtpting to itolb her of h»r good name land tShiaafeudter, yet she was anxious Co be in Uhe camplany of Dan Kellar, and (be ait Ms hiomie, bu't ^he wculd go over there over t'he advice a.nd Co'mimia.n'dBs. and enftreatJJes oif toer own good rootJrer i-we will g"Bv« them -the benefit of all itfhle nature they want In this case, all t'he •human nature and aill the physical nataxte, andt' say they aj*e welcome to every legftttaiate irnference ttoey dan dna/w from the prwern facts as to the fcih'aiia^iter of 'thait girl, and of these de-if-enldfanltls, and we wHll see to St that we get them where the rlgfcit of this thin'g is. The truith wCil prelvall in t'he end.

Ho ?pesks for Clarn Shank*. I say then t?Wat 'It was mst true, and I sipelak Cor Cfara Shanks wnen I say ^t,that sfhe ever dald of Dan Kellar, to her mother, .th'a't itf she Wad' done as toe wanted her to db, hSts wife wouQd have •had cause to be jfi'ato'us. I say that it-'is ri'ot true, ibecause of aill ttoe facts and cirou.msfte.nces in this case, because I believe it ?s a piwen faft t'hiait "she was a v'irg'm, and iif t'hat be true, the other thing lis not true. The human reason, the,human experience, teach us thait,if thie gf-rl was a pure girl, and we all believe 'her to have been, that if Dan Kel-

K'"

laito that the de- jct!a,ra .shlanWs would be insulted by a .lilty, and how? (married man like Dian Kellar and then.

I want you to get ips because there she would return to his home against will-be a eif ere nee macje to it hereafter, iittoe adiv^oe of her parents, that then She 1.- By 't'he cdnduct oif the Keliars. jiwoudd seek M's presence and his corn2. Because of their"c^mvensations, ad- i.pany, that 'then she would darken his imfisSfons and threats, -as they are de-l door. Oh, genitlemen, it isn't true, and noijiinated. ji sip^aik ftir the girt when I say she 3.

af .phys'ifca)! facts and con- never said Jt-because it isn't true. They Qlt'kms tlhat are in evidence. ito'a'd jut^t -better le'ft that out gentlemen, 4. Because o,f the conduct and conver- ibetiter not Wave had that good old mothsatJom oif 'the Shanks faimlily. 5. Because of the conduct and conversation of the deiceas'ed girl. '6. Because of the tr^t oif character of the girl and 'her faim'ily.

^he ad-

in his presence, erven agialn&t the ad Vice oif her mother, stoe would have shrjnned him and avoided hto as you iwtould the Viper and the rattlesnake. Tell me tttiat a (poor girl of the age of

er tell that. But ttoey say in the next .breath ttoat ttoe g'Wl wlas so jealous of her character and 'her g'ood name, and so proud of jit, and toad so much, wtoimantotood in that character thiait ttoe very minute that she heard from h'er mbltlher anybody toad even 'by ln'SitoUfatin'g th'at stoe had been flirting, tihlalt she flfew Into a rage and swore an tfath-'WM'dh my good frterid oaJid he totoped the .recording angel would (blot orut and. Would nto't record against t'hiait pobr girt. B-ult you say the very im/omenlt ^he heard that she proposed to go over and h'ave it out with ttoiam.

In one breattto ttoey say that Dan Keila,r hiaid a'tltemlp'ted 'to ruin ttote girl, toad laJtltem^ted to rob toler of her chamicrtCT, arid stoe knaw it, and in spite oif ittoalt 'stoe pr'apo'sed to go over there to that ihfa&ne and carry -waiter from his weffl \an!d drink ilt, anid in the next brealth wtould hiave you believe that avtas intlmlatted WhiaSt toie ever queStyonted toer dhtaraOter, th'at dhe proposed to gto rigtot over there and Wave a scrap with (New geiriitlemen, bring out your mature ifcrimg on you.r laws of human and physical nature and tot us toaive it out :w.i«h this imtel'lfgemit jury. The statements only need be incnt-lced for a momiemit to see wlhiait absurd lirrectomclliaible conclU^om ttoey must reach. "fto'ey ©ay that Clara. iShiamks got mad •atnd ireimia'ined imad until tihe noon meal, and 'ait the moorn meall that stoe goit up from -iJh'e (table far Itihe purpose of goimg. over to .the

fKellia/ns

And I want to ask you, what witness did they refer you 'to, from what evid'etwee do ttoey as'k you. to fimd that Clara Sto'amlts left toer father's (home and went over to Dan Kelter's on that fatal day? Thfey say whait? They say there were (tracks l,e,ajdlng over tttoa/t way. Yes, they feajy tihere were itraclcs. They say that IMr. ©h'arroks ©aw fh^ro. They lead out from the gate doiwn 'toward»3 the crossroads. (But now let us see about .ttoe tradke. Mr. ,Shamki3 said he did isee some tracks ito (the roaid and tihat he traced th'em down west until toe came to the ravime to ith'e ilow place to 'the road apd that toere toe eitopped. Just a .momemt, pl'ease. Mr. Puett, in his arguim'e)nt, said itfirat tihe testimony was ,tih®Jt Mr. iSihanks (Stopped at that place •because he was called off the tracks by •the lie Dam Kellar had told. He iwas misled, and therefore, didn'it trace them down to iDam Kellar's house. I hope for Mir. Puett's saike ithait 'he had forgotten the evidence wtoem toe made that stlaitement, (because tlha't statmemt is mot 'true. You Jon ow 4t ten'it -true, amd I 'know it Isn't true, and Mr. Maxwell knows it isn't true, and' Mr. 'Fuett knows It (isn't .true, amd Mr. Simans knows it Ism't true, and (ttoe court knows •ilt ten'it 'true. Did iMIr. Sh'ainks eay he was dtonvn -there 'tracing those -tracks towards the west, and Dan Kellar came ujp and told him to go some other way? Piffii't Mr. Shanks say ithat his children tfcold h.lm tihat Clara had gone over 'to Kellar's thait morning for water and then he gave ujp that rack? Isn't that -the truth about It? If that is true, the otftier ism' t. If toe gave Up .the 'track (because his children, told hUm that Clara had gone over 'there ifbr water amd that accounted for the track, It Ism't true 'that toe gave it up because iXan Kellar itold (him, or the chi'ldreft, a lie to lead him off the tracik i® it? He knew ithey were fresh, amd they were hunting the girl, have no doubt they were makiimig $m honest effort to fllfid her then. Mr. IShamks aald he saw -chat traok and iwlas traoing it dowm west and his cb.lldren told him that the girl had gome over iihere A)r a bucked of water, or that she had gome that morning, amd he turned his steps amd went ttoe other direottoa, and wtoem he didn't find her tihe evidence don't «how that he ever wenit back and traced thiait tlratck furttoef. If (Mr. iSiWantoe wasn't satisfied from the examiraaitioak lie made of that track (Whan the Was towit&af hi9 missing daugtotar rt&at a/ftemoon, his Jhildren had iold thait dbe hod beem over ttoere -that mormiing 'tat she Mad gcm& Sot a »buJket of water, if (he oanmot aooovaitt for ttoe traok of Clara Ohamlcs, tt

l^lhSTa^you Se^la^l^e^hS «he db* tlhalt her Wbar

told her not to- go- I propos* to etoow vail srwiitflfemen IhWt the only a«9au?t up Keliars siouse. i- Mr. snaniis was sat iSSTtt&t h'afi (been mfcdf upon

sp«ak

br Wer ttkl apftto** fanASy. TO™ ifero&it of €hftt poor ol® ttfWSliM Wat Vtap-

i3Kxm

to go back and hxntk tham dowm, to trace ttoem amd see whether they weat dw Dan KeUar's, oaax these gentlemen, with any -degree of oonsssreacy and airaess, osm here easd arte you to And on your oaUh what tihe father of (the girl dUid mot believe? Is that fair? Is Chat what you would! ask or expect of anybody prosecuibiinlg (for «a crime? I say, if the father of this girl didn't think enough of tihat trsJck to the road to pursue it amd hunt It down or see it it 5uud \reitb •fid tam KeMaiPs, are you go-' •tag to say on yotsr oarti^'tSiatt track of tCtara Shanks went to Dan Kellar's? (But, mo. he didn't go as far as the coroner of ithe raadL Just went a Jlbtle ways from the gate to tftie tow place hi the rowft erodi i*ever werft* a (foot further. gome Funny Thins*

amd fighting, -it

out «vi'tto .ttoiem. Would she? Did She? (Did she, geinitlemen? Utow dud ttoey trace her there?

Wlh^t did ttoey rely uipomi to show tto'at she was (there? Dan Hollar Didn't Mislead Him.

-cincum-

atamce, (frobt 1ihe ev®denoe he saw .with hla ayes, tfrap fihe Iniormafioni (he t4A MA fcfKWWedge of ttoe girl, her jrntpoMfatoft amd an the circumsfcamces, it Mr. Bha&Its d&d) dot toeiaeve them was flnoaeb fea Oheaft tMoSSt 0 h^u«a tin*

th« r•

Some very, very funmy .things tri ttoite eaae. Thosie people thraced the tracks from the pool up to (the low place amd mm them leading up the house where Dam Shanks (had made them thwy stopped amd TSot a blessed one of them can tell you why. They never followed those tracks acitoss the-Fountain coumty lime. If (Mr. Shanks diidn't believe (there was ainytihiing in It, then do you believe there 'is anything In it. Th-alt is mot all.. They- say we traced 'her there. We saw her itheire. We have got positive evDdence an one podrit—J3m Wilder. I believe I «m a pret'ty conservautiJve Tnan and I try to be in inyrelaitioins with men. I .have ~zeal oif ooume, but 1 try to be fair and conservative. They say 'that Ciafft Shatiika was traced In that house, but by -JKhe testimony of Jim Wilder who her. We satw her by the evidence., of Jim, Wilder. Who saw hert Now, what Is flhe evidence of Jim Wilder? The evidtentce is thait he went along that road about 12:30 In the aifiernoon (twentyfive minutes till 1 o'clock) on that Saiturday aftiernoan, aind the doors were open. Oh, yes -ait 'bwemty-five minutes till I, when Jt Ib necessary to get a missing liink the doors were opem at twentyfive mtoulte» till 1 to give Um Wilder a chance to trace this girl 'into tihe house and, for fear I forget iit, I want to make this suggestion: It occurred to me last night in mv dreams, or .father when I shoufd halve beem sleeping, but could not for thinking aibout sitois case —a thing that I -never before knew Utn a case of this kind. Now, every vital po'int, suctii as tracing the girl im the house and fixing the blaok shirt amd the lost sleeve, and'fixing the doors open. Whenever -It is necessary they have -to get a Witness to come here they had a w3bness 'and one only. Write fit down, make a note of it, aind tell 'Uh'Ls jury and this oourt, and bell me whait ilt means. When tt Is necessary ito haive the door open to see this girl In the house Uhey bring Jim Wilder here, who was traveling With a buggy, with another man, and J'Sm Wilder says he saw the doorctpen and saiw three women. When it 1's me(cessairy to (have the doors closed, an hiour afterwards, tlhey have a boy, Stesnnis, who hilmseaf was In company With another, a Single boy, who camte In and swore that /the doors wetne dlosed, and bcJtlh .these witnesses had seen aind talked with George Thomas. The Steamis (boy, who testified -to that story, comes ito thiis witness stamd amd claiims that he hevelr told ithati to a living human -beiing until two weeks before the trial. George Thomas went 'to the school house amid called him out aind he told it to htiim 'there. Never had called .the alttenitlom of (his companion, Sho'af, to ithe fact .never had told 'hiis parents never .had told anybody du-r-r tag thie long excitement of the matter unjtdl the -trial came on amid 'ilt was necessary to have same body swear that ithe doiors were closed, a.nd George Thomas, as a cfltizen, an the furtherance of jusf'lce, found it necess: -y to show -that the doors Were closed, amd toe found a watmiess to swear to 'it he .only got one only.

to WUder's Jiyo Sight.

Mir. WHder slai'd be went along there 'twtenty-:five mlinutes till 1 o'clock in a ••buggy with Philpeltit, he h!ad a hi(?T8e 'behind, and thait he said he told the jury, on croste examtoiajfibn, bu)t you knmv and I know he did not. He ,Wae setting on the sSde next to ttoe house and Phil-po-tt opposltte i?acipg the hou'se. They were going south With the Kellar htou'se on the left, the man who wis near the hou'se was Mr. Wilder, he says they were engaged im convei-sat'lon. diking. If they were he would be iooOtlng a't his oom/pan'ion. He 'said he was leading a hJonse iby the h'alter reto in toils hia'nid, as he put i't he hlad his to'arJd on the rein. The other man was onrtihe other side, and he looked through, ttoe open door and he saw what? What did 'he see? Clarta Sh'an-ks? He dldnlt see her. Couldn't stomach thait. ThaJt ,|s juslt a Kittle bit too much. What «'d he see? Hte slaw 'three women. He olays toe kn-ew Mlagtgle Kellar. I knew her but d'idn't know the other -women. Hjow were they dreissed? They were dressed to 'dark clbthefe. Tt WTsh ft were 1/gfh't like St was that d'ay, sunshiny. I don't iknotw .whielttoer they were old or young.

We all admit that if Clara Shun'ks .wiais fttoere she iwas dres&ed im thus dress, awoording tb the proof by everybody. There rs no (Jiispute aibouit thiat. Do you believe 'that J?m. Wilder satw C?ara Shlanks in that house at tihait (t'i'me? Suppose you hlad to answer am interrogatory lean you say upon your oath un der 'the evidemce, beyond ail rca&ona/ble dlouiblt that Jim Wilder stawCSanaSWanks ait Dan Kellar's house o-n that dlay at ttoiat time? Wh'ait would your answer (be? 'If thte ffberty otf your wife, or yo-ur (brother, or your friend were hanging upon the sDender thread like that and the .proof was such iks it is In th-is case, iwould you iwantt any .man to say 'thlalt 5t Is dead cerltalin 'that you didin'-t have •any reasomaJble dbu/bt aibout id. Two men together in a (buggy, one cif them •wtrnld naturally be facing the d'oor and One Would .be facing the other Way. The one -Who would not be facing .bite door comeS now and swears tha/t he saiw 'three people, he donft pretemd bo say •ttoalt he saw a (blue calico dress. Me (pretends to say thiat he did see .Maigigfie Kellar and tiwo other women as Whey •Were englageld to conversation.

What the State Most Prove. The other imam who wouM be facing the other is not put upon ttoe witness staaid. I toeiair ttoem say, you could have (put hilm om. We don't have to. The law Isn't -flhat we have to do a, thing oif that kind. The burden in thia case is that -the state must establish beyond a (reasonable do-ulbt the facets olalmed, and we do mot have to swear to anything and don't have to put a witness on Che stand. And they "knw as well as any an«un knows who has heard this trial /why. I't was because we d4 *wt need ttoam, 31t would have /bewn unnecessary, a®d to have oecupded another two weeks' «m* dm the tfial this case.

CProrft -the nwxmem. Ell &tanrfbury /went i»poin the witness stand amd told ttoe rfcnfth as he drtd, fir«*n the ancmrtait he testified as to wfoat tftte** defeoda-nts sartd -under oath, vo3TO(feai®y, aasfd they all agreed by It and tittere was no materiaj difference vn fflieflr testimony, aod ttoat it satf.etnedl Mm, the gentlemen krt«w as -well as We ttoart in laiw It wad the end of ttoecase. There ©ever was an hour ttont any unMa^ed, iatomlnded lawyw »6(|tM*Rit«di wtA Uhe rules of evld«fte* and the roue# tow iwowM hesttaite a ttvnaftenit to say Chat that was Hi* etrwf otf 'fhds ttsak did tibM Ikf 1MW WttoKW»

0$$

rwe expected to have to do ourselves, biit whet'hkr it was done by the staxe'j witn«Bsea or ourselves we cared not.

They &ay OUT people acted funny than afternoon. Dan went out in the ynnj amd took a dhair ami la.id down on phBow. His vrfte got dtaner and washed up the dishes aind did the wrk of country wtlfe «hait afternoon and his g*» ter wattcJ»e)d.Qut to the cracks srd watched for Ctaixi f%ank«. They saj that isn't rfalufal. It'-ie itM*firninartln» Is ft? Is It, genttoaem?- How did thej krttfw thait?,

f?Tr.

I will s'taite What I «tcnded ro ita t^c and what I started out to say a wiiUC ago aibout Jim Wilder seeing Ckwm Shamks there. If toe Jfidld :the truth kit anything, ifvhe eaiw wh«t he says- b* saiw, he saw Maiggle Hollar W. the 'side of the ta'bl^ and tiie otlier :w women sitting on the other side, en. gaged La a corver»a^.icM!. gentle, mem. if Clara Shanks -1

€,r the.-x.

re^dj to figh.t It out tvl'h thexw petpla she w»uW have h-ad It au-t with Dan Kellar, o*r if he had w-v.'t away sin would have bad 01 out he when stoe wemt In »:he "riK4ii^. would have ffraid ft out. If Cf.-Ua Shitnks wenf over there to fight If out with the peo* pie charged with muf ekr she would gone there and jumped on thc^« women, amd chey would ha^-e had theia sqrap -there. i,f

Mr. Beasley "merat-tooed the ftict thai Clara Shanks Was a buxom, strong girl IS and would have get the better ol

Kellar women had she found them alone. He also made the pewmt in argurpenl thait so fair as the evidence disclo.se E.'an K^lktr Iwid tw mo-tiv© for oaltlng any pert to t'he murder 0f (the girl.

After riif-nUo-riiflg the various search* of the Kellar 'house and speflklng ot the fatet thait there were notmeurks at ail on any of the Kellafs as any Indications to •speaking of the searches mad* f.or blood in the Kvllar hoqse Mr. Bfaaaley s'a'.d:

The-y w*ere not so carrfoss that they didn't get down on the liooj", that hey di'dto't go into the "bed and lopk in/t,o aha cupboard. Thoy were ndt so careless fhait they d-iidn't mlse ttoe blinds and open the doors, a-nfd yet they didn't, find anything.

That was before Thomas and the detectives and Mckey d-idn't tret fn the quesi'iOn,. They say they had an bpportunJity -to clean -that all up—cleaai it all up and gat it away on Monday mora? Sng. I don't know how many hundred pec-pie were around there. Do your belleve That those people would do that?

What liau Katlttr J^aUl. ,•

If Dan Kellar Wad been guilty Wa wouM not have said to Dr. MaKey, if he did say it, that this thing had gone so far that I told my wife to go ahead and I would stand be her. If Dan Kellar meant by ttoat that the killing of 'ftta girl hkd .been going on and he tottJ hta Wife he Would stand by her, then thte rule oif the court in the 29th IndLarata would not hold good. They say t'here thlalt where that'man said that "Somebody tlold me I ought to have hit itifa* amo'ther ltiick," (ttoey say thiat fs mkt 'the remark of a guilty man. Oh, yea, Dian Was telling t'he doctor that he 'had killed her and his wtiife had talked aiboult It. The dociior knew what 'he was talking about. He was tJalking of thlB troitible •the women had toad, thait he wiou'iki staind by 'her and tell exactly the tmrtily about it. Ttolat .was the only troulbler they had toad and thaJt is the only trouble and d'rd McKey stay t'hlafc Dan Kelllar jnltimalted tfhiat he was guiDty of mtrrder of anybody.

But they say 'that chipper of a boy says that he turned pale. That was di bright young boy amd more's the pity that amy man saw cecesffity in tint® case to -make proof of some susrlalous conduct against Dam Kellar and put 'il^ In to'Ss mouih to say thait Dam Kellanf s'hook 'amd tuirnieid pale. More'3 the pitjl1 that bright young boy, with a promising future, should have It put Into his mouth and have It drctwn from his lipe under oath fto'.-.ttoln,,, .ct -ttoat kind. Gentlemen. there ii a not her caae where they haive got one witness—'there are three others. There were two others besides the defendant there, and the other one is an unbiac?ed witness—was the father of the boy—and iif anything toe would have an Interest to supporting h'is son, and when I. .the doctor If 'diriything of thWt kind occurred, ce if he notriced anythteig peculiar about Dan Kellar's conduct, he said no. The conversatton •jvas wiith Dr. McKey and not the boy. If Dam Kellar had turned pale amd shxk im, his boots would .nu»t ttoe doctor have seem it. He is a prnc-tif-ial mam hfi lb a man experienced. He knows the laws of physical nature -t ,cjr .ti^p-n you ac«.d I and

:it

Dwi K^ilar

had done anything, or said anything, or toad been guilty of any conduct that was of a suspicious character,, Dr. McKey would have seen it. Det us see about this. He admitted on cross exanvim.atl'o'n that he had been In a room with Mr. MaxwdM and (that heJftad beein reiheairsing his 'iesWrnony.

It is perfectly leg.U'ima'te and night and proper for a lawyer to talk to shlis w'itnesEiPs ibefo-rt? 'he put3 them on 'the Witness '^tand and I have no cri'tUv.sfcn tP offer. And I dion'-t believe I ever heartl sdrh a story as I heard from fnlit bi/Lg'M Wjy's Hps. He sahi, Ithey wuJt ®o far as to rehearse the questibns airM answea-s. Mr. Maxwell was to ask Certain cfu^tlons and his answer was be a certalnl-th'ing. Mr. Lamfb asked 'him dboHt he 'told you about jt Somebody evidently ooneluded ttoat you ough't to slay thait Dan. Kellar dtoso and so, and they talced to that Wtoa and 'they had agreed as to what queetrfons .they should ave ansnvercd. TOWt is not n©denary. 'ThaJt ts beyond the Wcrder, itli is fudging over t'he Hne »s ndc necessary (for a lawyer ro do I a mmoK charging that

boy

mit/ted perjury. But, he h^l a ycung impressionfeble mfimd. it orted With ventom awl t..e against these peopS^,, wfJtto itlhese people. Tn- law. raggelt auc9flo« to

thCwrtladjournedhuntil"

ing ait 9 a. m.

liom-nsiit-t

bomor^tw -mOr ft-

Col.1 HK.ocl.'rt Mnrder r«»«.rthe4.

T3. Glau. ag«d 68, The body was^found

study,

1'e^here WEre

r^^BSr-r-.v..floor.fourtnttoeom

No 'Apparent tftoUve

was d(3Sco\ex^ra.

{lor (the crime was dt^ver^When of so W a I gold waitfch, chain and money we« found intact.

Wlthdrnwal*1 »t

Wtesihingtom, Feb. ^3^! amount of 12,381,000 was totor drawn from the again to York, presumably to be making payments for b^d leaves the tme -amount of serve $42,066^860. UP ofBcJELi dosing the department ndtflces of deposits on purchases hod been ewceiveo.