Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, October 14, 1903, Image 1
m
\ ? "siaL
? - Vv.7#s?
, Lancaster Enterprise;
* ?
Jk Vol. XIII. LANCASTER, S. C., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1903 N to
I WE 1
\ ANN
* H
f | QUr H
11 FALL m
I ?? y
r * Of Millins
I D
1 FOR FAfcfc
I I
is- =1=11 yi
| Octobe
yx
jr. I And to invite AX/L 1
fi ' f nrnr? A*>r? 11 tv r 11 lT*\ P
^ au_y jl v./ yj
$ lines. We
I will b
B rnu?- 1?* _o_
!x nauiting you it
asking you to ke
I w<| are,
Res
'"Lancaster Mei
. ? L
T tfc III Pi M ?M?J? ?J|
Ill IIII????????????????1?1 jl
SEC TO \
OUNCE . I
sry and /
ress Goods j J
AND WINTER (
A
?T~ ? <
1 fcr^eak MM *a am m
/ B r
m \
sr 1, 1903 i
the ladies and the public j 1
10 ME and see these j %
I w
know that you j ^
>e pleased. j C
I I
rr your patronage and \
ep the good work up, C
pectfully, I
rcantile Company |
EVIDENCE ALL IN.
A Review of the Evidence in 1 lie
Jim Tillman CaKe by W. W.
Dull.
With the testimony all heard in
the case of James H. Tillman and
the arguments about to begiu, it
may be interesting to emphasize
some of the points that have made
themselves con?piciously plain
iti the proceedings.
In nnitn r?f Iho ? ??>
W 1 vuv I UJCV/l IV/ II UI JJUIitics
into the trial, iu spite of the
dragging in of Senator B. R. Tillniau'8
name, it has been demonoff
n f ^ O ^ ? < ?* fl w ^ V> " 1 vv? ?>
men of the former Reform or
Tillmanite have had no more
| in j) a thy with the shooting of
Mr. Gonzales than members of
th? lactiou that he was tormerly
identified with. Look at the example
of Mr. Talbird?a reformer
and a Srate senator. It was tc
be expected that he would tell
the truth to the beBt of his ability,
to the best of his recollection,
and that is what, without doubt,
he did. Adams and Howling too,
were Tillman's friends?close
friends. They are among the
strongest witnesses for the State.
This is no matter for surprise.
Politics does not affect the sauctity
of au honest man s oath.
What the political views of
Mr. Wilson, chief cleric in the
otlice of Comptroller General
Jones, maybe I donot know. He
was a witness sworn for the defense.
He was the only eye-witness
sworn for the defense whose
testimony was not attacked.
His testimony was valuable and
only valuable in corroborating
the thecrv of the State, it streng
thened the dying declaration of
Mr. Gouzales?it placed Tillman
??*.,vn t.wo to two and a half feet
only frot.-* the outside of the side
rc?a1lr nrl * l n? d C dirCCtlOH Of
his aimed weapon tranpverse.
across the sidewaik, Awards the
At the bail hearintr. one r Fl.
Hall made an airadavit, claiming
that ho wa? an eye witness to the
ahooting and corroborating in
'evory particular" the account
given by Richard Holsonbaek.
Such the record shows. Hall was
present at the trial last week.
He was present when Lorick was
on the stand or immediately after.
The defense did not swear him.
Why? Was the hard lesson of
Lorick's testimony enough? And
yet Holsonback and Lorick are
the only eye-witnesses, except
J the prisoner, who in any degree
I support the defense. IiolsonI
back's character has been attack
e:l. Lorick waa not allowed
to answer questions imputing
that more than once ho had been
charged with larceny.
The witness Hyatt for the defense
swore that he saw a pistol
in Mr. Gonzale's hip pocket the
day before the shooting: and the
one thing about the appearance
of Mr. Gonzales that ho wan emphatically
aure of was thut he
^t'rl rtf woo r ^ f- *
? uv/b noui lilt UUll'll t.
se admits as true that Mr. Gonzales
without glasses could not
see sulliciently "to walk the
streets." Hyatt saw the pistol
when Mr. Gonzales was leaning
over to spit in a cuspidor?not
wearing glasses.
At some distance the prisoner
saw Mr. Gonzales approaching
and "eyeing him intently ." How
far away can you tell that a maD
wearing glasses is "eyeing" you ?
Senators Brown, Talbird, Mrs.
Melton, Mr. Lide, August Schiadman
and others testify that Mr.
(-tiillVulaj nr o n a 1 ~ ~ '
| viuii<i(?>vn nno niillUBt RUinUHl Ui
[the two senators and Tillman
I when the shot was fired The
I course of the bullet proves it.
Tillman told Spann Dowling at
! the jail that the bullet would
' shoot straight.
J Clark and others swear that
Hnteonbaok gave t<> them pfnto
' ments about the shooting that
THE OLD RkLmtf
\ ^
Absolutely Pure
TKERi tS NO SUBST/TJft
conflict with his bail, all idavit
and statement on the witness
staud. Llolt-onback declares that
when Tillman was about at . G*r ais
street he was at the State
house steps and overtook Til'ma/i
by the time of the shooting;
while Tillman was crossing the
street!
Witness White did uot, know
Mr. Gonzales; his testimony as
to the "white feather" thre.tfc is
wholly dependent on that^f Flo!
eonback.
Till mar' swore in hi., t?*sti moify
hat he wrote the Wini -b to
News and Lleiald ajrticlo in 1&9.)
and acknowledged a moment later
his own letter of 1892 saying
that he did not write it.
T; 11 ?.? a., ?r tt vt-_
a. <11 iii u it nnuio (>11A li H . O. . ^ t? Wbold
told him that he might expect
Mr. Gonzales, if he drew uis
pistol, to draw it from his Bide ^
coat pocket. Newbold was Jp"-* the
trial but was not sworn, ft
his bail ailidayifc Tillman nvo#
that he know nothing of Mr. Gou*?v
zalos' habit of carrying his hands
;n his coat pockets.
, The case tor the defense substantially
is that Tillman had
, *4 .4 Oj >c<i.
| That he was expecting an attack.
1 That he believes from the State's
editorials that its editor was in a
frame of mind to kill him. That * '
he saw Mr. Gonzales on the out-r
ctil A A r f K A fi i^n ttrollr 'V1* "
. >? w w ut iuu niyv nam. uinu iU I
Gonzales turrujuJto the inside and
thrust his hands Yeeper into his
pockets in a way Vfaat. he. interpreted
and offensive \ . if-.? ^ *
That he placed his ha
pistol when he saw Mr. GonzAles.
That the turn by Mr. Gonzil?s
brought him towards Tillman.
That Mr. Gonzales' thumb was
out when Tillman first saw him
and that ho plunged his whole
i hand in his pocket. That he fired
j heenus * ho believed that he was
! about to be shot.
Why should Editor Gonzales
' wis!) to h.'ive killed Tilln ..?? I
Tillman was not in his way As
a candidate for office he had been
defeated and discredited. 11c was
in nobody's way. His term of '
office as heutoy?*
about to expir^
i would have me
bio and sacrifid ' ,.art of
; the editor of The SN?%ty. ft would
1 have meant, speaking from a
purely sellish point ol view, at ,, I
least serious il not permanent interruption
to his career as a news
paper editor. Five months previous
Tillman's defeat had been
effected. Tillman's personality
had been dismissed from his
paper and from his mind. Tillm
O n'a I? H n /? I-' n rv?? b " ^
Iiinu o aiim<i\C) "II UUIl/iaiUO Iifiu
been wholly harmless. JElis denunciation
Irom the stump had
counted for nothing. Everybody
in South Carolina knows this.
If Mr. Gonzales had shot Tillman,
if he were iu the dock today
instead of Tillman, his defense
might have been insanity, for any
jury would have said that an ar'
Concluded on Page Eight.
/