The Crime of the Century; Or, The Assassination of Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin

by Henry M. Hunt

"I take an exception to that remark of Judge Longenecker's," said Mr. Forrest.

"Oh, yes," replied the State's Attorney, "take your exception. Forrest also said that the key was found by a trunk-maker, because he found on the stand a man, Officer Lorch, who had worked once as a trunk-maker. Do you believe what Officer Lorch said as to where he found that key, or do you believe that he went and fitted a key to the trunk, then put some paint on it, put it where it was under the washstand, and then came into this court and swore to a lie? If you want to believe Forrest's statement against that of the officer, believe it. But we say that after they had got the trunk into the wagon they found that the trunk was locked and the key gone, but it does not matter. We could theorize as to how that key was missing on the floor, but it is not necessary. It is in evidence that that key was found in the cottage, and it is in evidence that the trunk was locked and had not a key upon it when they went to take out the body. Yet this learned lawyer would have you believe this is a conspiracy on the part of the people, and he says it began after the coroner's inquest. That is his statement. A conspiracy to convict innocent men! Now, look at it. I suppose he would have you believe, and he might just as well go on to charge, that the body of Dr. Cronin was put there by the conspirators on the part of the State, and that the trunk was put where it was by the same conspirators on May 5th, also that the clothes were put in the sewer in a sachel just like the one these men bought at Revell's, and not only that, but that Martin Burke knew he was going to be brought into that conspiracy when he went to Winnipeg. He would also have you believe that Martin Burke knew after the coroner's inquest and before his name was mentioned that there would be a great conspiracy, and that they would try to implicate him, and therefore he would go to Winnipeg. I merely mention those matters, gentlemen, because you will have observed that Mr. Forrest argued them with the same force that he argued every circumstance connected with this case, and you can appreciate the sincerity of his argument. Is it to intimidate the people's representatives, so that they would not dare go further in this hellish conspiracy? Is it for that purpose, or what does he mean by it? If it means that he thinks he can intimidate the representatives of the people in this case, he has struck the wrong blow, because it is our duty to present these matters as we get them, and we shall use our weak endeavors to do our duty.

"Mr. Forrest spoke as earnestly about that and was as much in earnest as he was when he spoke to you of the identification of Burke. He read to you an authority of a case which occurred about three hundred and fifty years ago, where the identification was contested. According to his reasoning, a man might go into your house, shoot your wife before your eyes, and then if you can identify him the moment you see him you are not to be believed. He argues that before you can be believed you must put him in a line of a hundred men, let them walk through a room one by one, and then pick him out. That he argues in the face of undisputed evidence that you saw him kill your wife, yet he would have you believe that you could not rely upon any such evidence as that for identification. The man who could be mistaken in Martin Burke's face, surely must be blind. It is a case of undisputed identification. The case Forrest refers to, is where it has been contested; where three or four witnesses swear that is the man and others swear that it is not the man; where witnesses swear that it is the horse and others swear that it is not the horse; where some witnesses swear that it is so and other witnesses swear that it is not so, but who ever heard of any man, any lawyer, any man, indeed, in his senses undertaking to talk with sincerity and urge upon twelve honest men that where five witnesses come forward and swear to the face of Martin Burke, that he is the man, and are not to be believed. Who ever heard of a second-class lawyer, or even a police court shyster, claiming that that identification was not perfect? Five undisputed witnesses, old man Carlson, Mother Carlson, Charles Carlson, Mrs. Charles Carlson, and Mortensen, five witnesses swear that that is the man who rented the cottage, yet that same learned lawyer is undertaking to mislead you into the belief that that identification is not to be relied upon. It is absurd.

"Well, if he will argue that Martin Burke is not the man who was there on the 4th of May, if he will argue under this evidence that Martin Burke did not rent that cottage, if he will argue that he did not move that furniture there, if he will argue that Martin Burke was not seen on the premises there, and tell me that he is in earnest, and you believe his argument, tell me when and where you would convict a man of crime, if the lawyer takes the position he did in this case. But he says the old man Carlson could not tell it was the 4th of May. How do you know? When that old man got on the stand, Forrest was yelling at the top of his voice, 'How do you know, how do you know?' while the old man yelled at the top of his voice, 'Because I know.' Yet he would have you believe he said 'How do you know?' in such a meek and mild tone that he could not hurt anyone's feelings. He is not sincere when he says that the State's Attorney and Mr. Hynes and Mr. Ingham are engaged in a conspiracy, and when he abuses the witnesses on the stand and charges them with perjury and lying, he knows in his heart that it is not true. He has made insinuations against that big-hearted Irishman sitting there, Mr. Hynes, of bullying witnesses, which he knows is untrue. There is not a man who practices before the bar of Chicago who is more lenient with the witness than is Mr. Hynes, and there is not a man at the bar who will get more out of him than will Mr. Hynes. You, gentlemen, heard his cross-examination of the defendants' experts, and his examination of the witnesses who came to the stand, and I will leave it to you to decide, and not to Forrest, if he abused the witnesses on the stand. For three days this learned counsel for the defense stood before you twelve gentlemen and had no stock in trade; not a word to say in their defense beyond abusing and scandalizing the men who are trying this case, and who are seeing that the people of this great State are not misrepresented. He stood here and maliciously abused Mr. Hynes, whose only effort and desire has been that the guilty men, if they are guilty, shall be punished, and it is my duty as an officer of the State, to explain this matter to you and to hurl back the insinuations at the man who made them.

"He told you further that I had made a blunder, but he did not tell you how many blunders he had made. He told you I had made a blunder with the same force that he tells you that Mertes lied when he testified that he saw Coughlin at the Carlson cottage, and when he tells you that, his clients have not been proved guilty, notwithstanding all our witnesses' lies. Suppose what he says about Mertes and his knowing it was May 4th is proved, what difference does it make whether it was on the night of May 4th or not. But he does put this man Kunze and Dan Coughlin together at the Carlson cottage. He puts Coughlin in the cottage and Kunze driving him there, and he and his associates gave you good evidence of their sincerity when they went to the cottage or house where this poor man lives, who can talk but very little of the English language, and told him that the Court had sent them to find out what he knew. Yet when he comes here and gives his evidence on the witness stand they tell him he lied, but they carefully abstained from saying what they did when they went to see him. You will remember how they examined him and put words into his mouth that he did not understand, and then tried to impeach him, but I think you, gentlemen, will admit that it is proved beyond question that Coughlin went to the cottage; that he had a key to it in his pocket; that he was perfectly at home there, and that Kunze drove him there.

"Then he says old man Carlson did not see Burke there on the night of the 4th. He could not tell you why the old man did not see him, although the old man said distinctly that he did; but this we do know, that the next morning he and his wife were out in front of the cottage and they saw something on the steps which they say looked like preserves, and he said to his wife that he supposed they had been moving in the night before. You will remember that Burke had said to old Carlson that it was about time to move in. Yes; move in. It was a bad day for Burke when he moved in, and it was a bad day for Dr. Cronin when he moved in."

"The witness said it was about time to fix up," said Mr. Forrest.

"Yes. I think he did. It was a pretty bad time to fix up," retorted the State's Attorney. "Fix up is a better word, and a nice fix they made of it. Old man Carlson tells you that the next morning he thought they had moved in. Forrest says you must not believe old Carlson, because he is an old man, and that the story about the wagon tracks he did not tell before the coroner. That is very true, but he says here that there was a wagon track, and it certainly was not necessary for the old man to commit perjury in order to prove that there was a wagon track. A great many thing's have happened which were not testified to before the coroner's inquest, but Forrest says that none of them are true. He first complains and abuses us when getting a jury because there was so much known of the case and so much published, and yet, because we did not publish the whole thing to the world and before the coroner, he abuses us before the petit jury. You can not please him, and the only way to please him is to give him evidence sufficient to acquit his clients.

"Mr. Forrest brought the trunk in here and exhibited it to you and I have a right to say a few words about that. I also desire to say a few words about the clothes and the necktie, which was cut through at the neck. They cut his pantaloons off, they cut his clothes off and did not take the time to take them off."

"I want to enter an objection to the jury's inspecting the clothes," hastily remarked Mr. Forrest, jumping to his feet.