CRONIN'S KNIVES FOUND.
One more sensation was to be added to the many startling developments of the trial, in its last stages. There was no session of court on November 27th, in order that the attorneys for the State might be afforded an opportunity to arrange the order of their arguments, and, as the following day, Thursday, was the day of National Thanksgiving, the case went over until Friday morning, November 29th.
FLYNN. On the afternoon of Thursday, Barney Flynn, a detective in the employ of the city, and connected with the Chicago Avenue Station, went to Chief Hubbard with a remarkable story. Flynn was the man who arrested Coughlin, after the latter had concluded his interview with Chief of Police Hubbard. He took him to the armory police station and searched him in the presence of Captain Bartram. Among the other things he found in Coughlin's pockets were two pocket-knives and a revolver. These Flynn carried with him to the central station and placed in his box for safe keeping, and, when, a few months later, he was transferred to the Chicago Avenue Station, he placed them in a vault which he rented in the Fidelity Bank. There they had remained undisturbed ever since. When Chief Hubbard heard this story, he ordered the knives to be produced without delay. The attorneys for the State were advised of the facts, and T. T. Conklin, who was sent for, unhesitatingly declared that both knives had been the property of Dr. Cronin. Flynn was placed upon the stand after the noon recess on the following day and told his story.
Mr. Conklin followed the detective, and the knives were handed to him by Judge Longenecker. He glanced at the larger one, which was medium sized and with a pearl handle, and unhesitatingly declared that he himself had given it to Dr. Cronin about a year before. "I ought to know it," said the witness, emphatically, "for I carried it myself for nearly two years."
The smaller knife, a little bone handled affair, of rather a peculiar shape, was also identified by Mr. Conklin, as one he had found on the street about nine months before. He had carried it home and placed it on the mantle, where Dr. Cronin had found it and appropriated it to his own uses. Both of these knives the physician had been in the habit of carrying in the right-hand pocket of his vest.
The cross-examination by Mr. Forrest was extremely light, the witness being simply asked whether the knives were not of a very ordinary pattern. The witness admitted that he would not swear they were the identical knives that Dr. Cronin had carried,
THE KNIVES. because there were many like them in the market, but he was positive that they resembled them as closely as they could do even to the number of the blades. On re-examination by the State's Attorney, Conklin said that no such knives were found at his house after Dr. Cronin had disappeared. Prior to this, at the morning session of court, Barnard F. Carberry, a bright looking young fellow, gave evidence concerning a visit he had made to Matt Danahy's saloon on the evening of May 4th, which appeared to put an end to the last vestige of Martin Burke's alibi. Lawyer Forrest was then given another inning, and introduced a long string of witnesses to counteract the evidence which the State had submitted on rebuttal.
Owing to the fact that the discovery of the knives had taken the defense somewhat by surprise, it was permitted to sandwich its rebuttal testimony in between the speeches. On December 2d August Loewenstein, a brother of Jacob Loewenstein, Coughlin's former partner in the detective business, testified that he had sold a pair of pants to Coughlin on the 27th of April, one week before the disappearance of Dr. Cronin. The garment had to be altered, and while Coughlin was waiting for them, he took out of the pockets of the old ones some keys and two knives which he laid upon a chair. Witness particularly recollected these knives because he had asked Coughlin to give him one of them, and he was positive that the two knives which had been identified by Mr. Conklin were the same he had seen in Coughlin's possession. Jacob Loewenstein also swore, with emphasis, that he had seen Coughlin's knives on scores of occasions when he was traveling beats with him, and was more than positive that those which had been placed in evidence were the identical ones his partner had owned for a long period. One of them in particular he could tell by the way it was ground, from the color of the handle and the general appearance. The point, he said, showed it had been ground on the sandstone at the station, and, as a matter of fact, he had seen Coughlin grind it that way when he was standing by and talking to him. This evidence was not materially shaken on cross-examination.
State's Attorney Longenecker opened his address on Friday, November 29th, and spoke for four hours. He resumed on Saturday, November 30th, and finally finished at three o'clock on the same day. Judge Wing then commenced his appeal for Daniel Coughlin, speaking two hours on Saturday, six hours on Monday, December 2d, and about one hour on Tuesday, December 3d. George Ingham followed on behalf of the State, speaking continuously through the day until five o'clock, when he closed. Daniel Donahoe, on behalf of O'Sullivan and Kunze, spoke from ten a. m. to five p. m. on Wednesday, December 4th. Mr. W. J. Hynes, who was Dr. Cronin's intimate friend during his lifetime, occupied the whole of Thursday, December 5th, and a portion of Friday, December 6th, with a royal tribute to the memory of the murdered patriot, and a grouping of the facts of the conspiracy. Mr. Foster, on behalf of Beggs, and Mr. Forrest, for the other defendants, followed in their turn. Luther Laflin Mills had been selected to make the closing address, but a sudden attack of illness, which confined him to his room, necessitated a change in the programme, and State's Attorney Longenecker, on Dec. 13, brought the speech-making portion of the trial to a close.
J. M. LONGENECKER, STATE'S ATTORNEY.
CHAPTER XXIII.
OPENING FOR THE STATE.—THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED—A MASTERLY ARGUMENT BY STATE'S ATTORNEY LONGENECKER—TRACING THE PLOT FROM ITS INCEPTION TO THE MURDER—AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE—ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE—DONAHOE, WING, FOSTER AND FORREST MAKE THEIR FINAL PLEAS FOR THE PRISONERS, AND INGHAM, HYNES AND LONGENECKER CLOSE FOR THE STATE.
State's Attorney Longenecker was on his feet the moment the witness had left the stand. It was apparent that the State was determined to push the remainder of the proceedings with all possible speed. The prisoners looked anxious; the vast audience expectant.
"You may proceed," said Judge McConnell, and clearing his throat, the State's Attorney commenced a memorable address.
He spoke as follows:
"If the Court please, Gentlemen of the Jury, I want to talk to you about this case, about the evidence which you have been hearing from the witnesses. I shall not attempt to talk to any one except you twelve men, because you are now interested in the case and it is your duty to come to a correct conclusion. The responsibility rests upon you after we have done our work. I have no doubt that you twelve men are competent to render such a verdict in this case as will meet the demands of the law. I have no doubt that you are prepared on this evidence to render such a verdict as the evidence warrants you in rendering. Now, I say to you this, that I shall confine myself to the evidence in the case. My associates will attend to the arguments and make the speeches. I want now to express my feeling of gratitude to you for your patience during the hearing of the evidence. It is due to you, gentlemen; it is a sacrifice that you, I hope, will never be called upon to make again. To be taken from your homes and be shut up for weeks and months is no little sacrifice. You have had reason, perhaps, to complain of us; you have had reason to complain because of the slowness of the case; and yet, after all, we felt it our duty to do what we have done. We felt that we could not in any way shorten the proceedings and yet do justice to the case. I hope that none of you will harbor any feeling against any one in this case on account of delays.
"Again, gentlemen, you are twelve men here listening from day to day to the evidence; this case has strung out from day to day and from week to week, until it has become a great case. It has become a noted case to you—a case that you will never forget. It has grown as the days have passed by. Very often jurors, courts and lawyers, when a case grows and there is evidence piling up, forget that it requires some evidence to reach a conclusion, more of it than if it was a small case. Do not be led into this error of determining what you shall do. The evidence of conspiracy is the same for a small offense as it is for a great offense. The evidence of conspiracy to obtain dollars and cents from you or me or any one else must be just as strong, although it only takes two hours to try the case, as if you are trying men for murder. What I am trying to have you understand is this: that because it has been so long and has grown so large, you must not think that it requires more evidence on that account. If the evidence convinces you of the guilt of these men, then it matters not whether there are five men or ten men on trial or only one man. The evidence necessary to convince you beyond a doubt of the guilt of the men on trial should be just as strong as if there were twenty men on trial. The law is always just. It is made to protect the innocent as well as punish the guilty.
"After you have heard the arguments from counsel on both sides, having heard the evidence and instructions of the Court, you will go into your room and make up your verdict and bear in mind that the law itself is just; if the law compels you to inflict a penalty here that you do not like to inflict, remember that you are not to blame and the law is not to blame; it is the men who have violated the law. What I say to you in this case is from a feeling that we wish to get at the truth; what I say will be said with a view of getting at a truthful verdict and nothing else. I have no feeling against these men on trial personally. Why should I stand up here and ask you to convict Martin Burke, Daniel Coughlin, Patrick O'Sullivan, John F. Beggs and John Kunze unless I believe the evidence justified me in asking you to do it? If I should at this moment ask you twelve men to convict them upon anything else but the evidence, I would not be fit to fill the position that I now occupy. We do not desire that these men shall be 'guessed' guilty. We do not desire that they shall be convicted upon doubtful evidence. We do not desire that they shall be convicted upon anything except the law and the evidence in the case; but if you do believe that that law and that evidence satisfies your mind of their guilt, then we do demand at your hands that your verdict shall be in accordance with the law and the evidence, and nothing short of a truthful verdict under the law and the evidence will meet the demands of this case, whether the verdict be to acquit the defendants or whether it be to convict the defendants; with that verdict the people represented by myself and my associates must be content."