Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

. . ? -?' ? ''? --^*.v?^'"*" _. \ . ' ' ' ? ?? \ V SUPPLEMENT THE LAURENS ADVERTISER. LAURENS, S. C, OCTOBER 14, 1903. DOWN TO ARGUMENT IN TILLMAN CASE. The Taking of the Tes timony Completed Saturday. CHARACTER WITNESSES. Testing Credibility ofj Men Put Up By the Defense. ANOTHER INCIDENT OYER THE MENTION OF POLITICS. Witness Mitchell's Manner To ward Mr. Bellinger Such That He Expresses Himself Forcibly and Clearly. BY W. W. DALI.. Lexington, Oct. 7.?The eighth day of the trial of James H. Tillman saw the development of a large part of the case for the defense. The witnesses examined were as a rule put upon the stand to prove threats or expressions alleged to have been employed by Mr Gonzales. One or two witnesses also were examined with the view to break ing down the testimony of certain wit nesses -for the State. As has been said before In these re ports, an accurate estimate of this trial, its Incidents, Its Issues and what they involve may best be had and can only be had from the stenographic notes which are being published dally In this paper. Intelligent South Caro linians ought to read them carefully and perseverlngly, until the trial Is over. The fate of the prisoner at the bar Is a matter of profound, extraor dinary Importance?to the prisoner at the bar and his friends; but to the State of South Carolina, or In' other words, the people of South Carolina, prosecuting this case larger issues are involved. Never before perhaps has a criminal trial including so many prin ciples of first Importance to the pub lic been seen or heard In South Caro lina. The journalism of South Caro lina Is to a degree involved, for utter ances of a large proportion of the newspapers of the State are actually in evidence and the duty of an editor to his readers, with its limitations, is a subject of searching inquiry, inces santly cropping out. The methods of ''Oie lawyers, for the one side or the ^ier, are brought into a relief lncom I pnrably sharper than In most cases. The history of South Carolina for a period of years is intertwined with the cause and more to the point, the his tory of the State for years to come may be involved in it. For these and numerous other reasons, readers of this newspaper are urged to peruse with attention the necessarily accurate story that the stenographer's notes tell. Applying generally to the witnesses examined yesterday as well as the ones heretofore examined, it may be ob served that they were with rare, if any exceptions, friends, comrades in urms, connections, clients or political supporters of the prisoner. This does not necessarily affect their credibility; It is quite possible that others with no such relations to the prisoner may be presented; but so far the prisoner has been In the hands of his friends. By no means was the same true of the witnesses for the State. At least three or the latter, men like State Senator Talblrd, Representative Dowllng and Dr. E. L. Adams testified to a close friendship with the late lieutenant governor. Darring the gentlemen con nected with The State newspaper and one or two witnesses like Dr. J. W. Bubcock, those presented by the pros ecution had no direct Interest one way or anther In the personality of Mr. Oonimles or the prisoner. Lancaster, King, Cause, Alken, Romar, together with nearly all the eye-witnesses, are witnesses wholly because ft was their fortune or misfortune to be. Take the case of Mrs. Emma C. Melton, a wo man of Intelligence, a woman of cul ture, a woman whose virtues entitle her to the honorable position she oc cupies In private life?doos it not seem a mysterious dispensation of Provi dence^ that she should have been se lected to occupy at the moment of the tragedy a spot from which, in her own words, she "could have almost reached out and touched" Its victim? How | strange, how passing strange, that of i fall persons it should have been left to her In the thronged; -treets of Columbia at this busy I lnie to have been the observer, iror than all other close observers to > and describe the doomed editor, j tth his countenance "perfectly pla ?? "with no scowl there," seemingly )sorbed In his thoughts" at the In gM before the bullet from the Oer- 1 in mngnzlne pistol pierced his body ??ugh and through? ?nie of the devoted friends of the Pner? h/ive testified against him. ly of his devoted friends ond some ftectlons hftvo testified for him. A L however humble, may have no |rior as a teller of the truth. This time or place to Impugn any veracity. Nevertheless, veracity, nation for veracity, helps to lift ?to positions of trust among their and at least two of the three of lsoner'B friends who were fltate'i ies are senators or members the house in the South Carolina legis lature?Senator Tal bird and Represen tative Dowllng. Repeating that it Is not the prov ince of a reporter to pass upon the credibility of a witness and with no purpose of doing so, it must be said that a characteristic was imputed yes terday to the late editor of The State the possession of which those who knew him best did not suspect in his life time. Mr. Gonzales was described ns a man who did not hesitate to go out into the street day and night and enter into conversation, voluntarily or otherwise, touching matters of gravest personal consequence to hlmseif. His friends say and some of them have said In their testimony that he was a man of few words, that he wrote more than he spoke and that he was not of gar rulous or communicative nature or habit. That he should have descended to the vernacular of rufllantsm and the slang of the "gun toter" will come with a Hhock to those all over South Caro lina acquainted with his peculiarly quiet, even gentle demeanor, his uni formly precise, clean and well chosen words of expression. The witnesses may have told the truth?let the JUfiy say?but there are two Juries. From one of them The State newspaper is ex cluded for the present. Let the other and greater?whatever its final verdict rendered In the light of years?read the evidence and answer at least for itself, answer if N. Q. Gonzales was a man who spoke freely, familiarly, recklessly and blatantly, on personal and private topics touching his very life and the life of another, like a braggart and a fool? Read then the testimony. Ex amine the picture that these witnesses have drawn. Then form your estimate of its artists. Line for lino, word for word, it is givuu elsewhere. The Clash Yesterday. Those who have read the proceedings of the trial will have observed that more than once the name of Senator B. R. Tillman has been called, in one or another connection by attorneys for the defense. When at the opening of the court yesterday Mr. Rembert was read ing from editorials of The State, not heretofore read by the prosecution, a passage of some heat occurred between Mr. Bellinger of the State's counsel and Mr. Nelson of the prisoner's. It ended satisfactorily to the gentlemen chiefly concerned. Both were intensely in earnest in what they said, but both were apparently cool and self-con trolled. The colloquy grew out of the effort on the part of the defense to have read an editorial taken from a New York paper and reproduced in The State, to whlcr- the State objected on the ground that It contained no refer ence to the prisoner. The following from the stenographer's notes describes the colloquy, and is printed in extenso elsewhere: Mr. Bellinger?If your honor will per mit me, the editorial in which refer ence is made to these two clippings does not mention either of the Tlll mans; It mentions no name. Now, I understand one refers to the defend ant, the other does not refer to him, even remotely and there is nothing in the editorial which calls attention to the clipping which refers to Tillman. One from The Sun of the 26th of Feb ruary and the other of the 27th, dlf fenent dates. Why should a clipping which refers to agriculture, religion or any other subject than the defend ant be admitted? Mr. Nelson?Any clipping which re fers to agriculture, religion or any thing and connects the two Tlllmans with it and editorially is referred to is competent. Mr. Bellinger?Yes, but this edito rial does not mention Jim Tillman and Is Incompetent because it does not re fer to him. Mr. Nelson?We have a right to show the slate of mind of the deceased to ward the Tlllmans, the defendant or his uncle, and when he calls attention to an article reflecting upon one or both it is competent to bring it out before the Jury. Mr. Bellinger?We all understand that Mr. Nelson's object In bringing It In here is to make a political trial out of this caBe, and that is what we are opposing. They cannot make It ap pear that the deceased because he had ill will towards the whole family, that every word of his relating to any mem ber of that family can be brought in In the discussion of a crime commit ted by the defendant who happens to be a member of the family, and I be lieve that both sides are anxious to narrow this thing down to the facts of the case. But we can see that this is a trial between the State and James H. Tillman; not In any view of the case political but simply criminal. The other side may take a different view of It, but we contend that they should be limited to the criminal law and criminal evidence. Along that line, it has been suggested, would we be per mitted to Introduce editorials prais ing the late George D. Tillman in order to show the relation toward the fam ily? Mr. Nelson?When the time comes, If you offer to introduce It we will state whether or not we object. When my f i lend says that I wanted to make this a political fight I hope he did not measure his words because I say that Is not the case and any such statement from any source whatsoever la abso lutely false. Mr. Bellinger?I will state I meant no reflection. The Court?I think that hi sufficient, already said. Itu Happy Ending. Later in the day Mr. Nelson arose and said: "I had Intended to make a statement at the hour of adjournment, but will make it now. My friends on both sides of the case have advised me that I misapprehended Mr. Bellinger's state ment this mornImr and T think so rr.y seir, and I get up to say that I regret having stated what I did and I hope the pleasant relations between us will not be disturbed. I would not do any thing to offend him and in the heat of the moment I may have done some thing that I should not have done." The Court?That is very proper. Senator TUlman's Name. Without reference to the persona) mattar between the lawyers, happily ended* attention Is here directed to the statement made by Mr. Nelson that "wo have the right to show the atate of mind of the deceased to the Tlll mans, the defendant or his uncle." etc. Mr, Crawford argued point Vlv that It was. unjust to the United States senator from South Carolina to bring his name into the case. Judge Gary 1 took the view that It might have some bearing and it was admitted, "to show the relations between the deceased and the prisoner and for no other pur fiOSft." When D. V. Cheshire, who served In the prisoner's regiment, waa on the Maud his testimony of an alleged threat ufed by Mr. Gonsalea. which he heard from a third party and communl" rated to the prisoner, was objected to on the ground that It was hcajaay. Mr. Thurmond pointed out that a per son who had merely heard of a threat would not be Justified In acting upon It without investigation but Judge Gary held that was competent as showing the attitude of the mind of the prisoner. The testimony speaks for Itself. The witnesses describe themselves and state their histories in a measure together with their employment, so all is in the detailed report and is rarely Interest ing. Solicitor Thurmond conducted the examination in chief of the State's witnesses for the most part and has now turned over the conduct of the cross examinations of the witnesses for the defense to his assistant counsel. -Juror Sharpe though able to serve yesterday was still far from well. Judge Gary %vas considerate and watchful of his health throughout the day and noticing that he appeared fatigued, adjourned the court at 5 o'clock, one hour before the usual time. It is not believed that as much time will be consumed In hearing the testi mony for the defense as was consumed by the prosecution, but this is mere conjecture. Lexington, Oct. 8.?At six minutes to 5 o'clock this afternoon, James H. Tlll man, charged with the murder of N. G. Gonzales, took the witness stand to testify In his own defense. This was the leading event of the day's pro ceedings so far as public Interest was concerned, but of little comparative Importance as bearing upon the case, for the reason that the prisoner did not reach his story of the shooting or the incidents immediately preceding It. He will resume this morning. The prisoner bore himself with calmness and his replies to Congressman Croft, his law partner and leading counsel, were well expressed, so far as the use of words is concerned. His resonant voice was easily heard throughout the court room. At times an accent of bit ter sarcasm appeared In hlH answers, as for example, when saying that he gathered and published news as a cor respondent in Washington after the methods generally employed by news paper men, he added "except South Carolina." His demeanor appeared as that of one who deemed himself a greatly persecuted man and at the same time was still resentful. What he said yesterday related for the most part to the controversies between him self and Mr. Gonzales of former years together with references to newspaper attacks of The State at various times. Mr. Croft announced at 5.40 o'clock that a new line or phase of the ex amination would be entered upon this morning and the court adjourned. Just before the adjournment the question arose as to whether or not the prisoner could testify concerning editorials in The State bearing upon him and not introduced in evidence. Mr. Bellinger objected that the edito rials themselves were the best evi dence. Mr. Johnstone stressed the ar gument that the prosecution had In possession the files extending over the years of the newspaper's existence; that they were not In the possession of the prisoner. "Have you asked for them as you did for others? You could have had them with pleasure," observed Mr. Bel linger. "We did ask you to bring them here," exclaimed Mr. Johnstone, "and you ravished them from us." "That's right," quietly replied Mr. Bellinger. The Introduction of the editorials of The State for an entire year, for twice the length of time requested by the defense In its subpoena duces tecum, seems to have been one of the sur prises of the trial. It is not for a lay man to inquire the reasons from the viewpoint of the legal tactician and advocate but to the newspaper man it would seem to have been Inevitable. The Columbia State during the editor ship of N. G. Gonzales presented a case against Lieut. Gov. Tlllman, candidate for governor. It was presented with -xa i?? 111 u ?a uoqqjH onja?aum X.io.\o power and courage, with a skill that has seldom been equalled In the col umns of a newspaper. While Tlllman was a candidate and Gonzales was alive, was the case answered? Was an answer ever seriously attempted? Under the law, the truth of the edi torial expressions is not an issue in the pending trial. The time waB, how ever, when their truth and the truth of similar expressions from the ma jority of the newspapers of South Car olina were conspicuously In issue. The Opportunity existed for the candidate to demolish them if they were false In origin. If they were not demolished, why not? As was said yesterday, the case of James H. Tlllman Is being tried before two juries?that larger Jury of the people of South Carolina from whom the Columbia State is not ex cluded. In behalf of the editor who is dead, whose life "was snuffed out" by the German magazine pistol of Luger contrivance, what stronger, more tell ing or fitting weapon in the self de fense of his good name and honorable memory than his own masterful rea soning and luminous argument could be offered? Who in South Carolina, even among his enemies, would deny that N. G. Gonzales would hesitate to rest his case before the patriotic and truth loving and fair dealing people of South Carolina upon his own ex pression of the truth as he saw it? Regardless of the minutiae of legal procedure in Lexington, right and proper In evidence as the editorials may be there, there can b'> no ques tion of their fitness before the world and before the public of South Caro lina when the liberty of the South Carolina press is imperiled. The defense yesterday Introduced a number of . Important witnesses?some witnesses upon whom it has been pop ularly supposed that Its case mainly depends. One of them was Richard HoJsenback. This witness occupies a peculiar, because a dual or even treble, position. To begin wllh, ho Js one of the two or three eve-witnesses pre sented by the defense. Again, he is one of those upon whom the defense leans to support the theory that Mr. Gonzales was a man who made threats and selected Edgefleld citizens with whom he. had an acquqaintance that was limited to say the least to con fide in?when he casually met them In public places. In the third place. Mr. Holsonbftck has upon him tho added weight of all the testimony of Cept. J. A. White. Capt White did not know the gentleman who accosted him In the lobby leading to the senate chamber. Had not he been Informed by Holsenback that It was Mr. Gonzales, his testimony possibly would not have been Intro duced. The witness Holstnback may be a truthful man, but occupying the position of stupendous importance to the defense, forming the key to the defense, it would be the more fortunate for tho defense if his reputation for veracity were unassailable. Whether or not It will be successfully assailed remains to be seen, but it was made o\oi r yesterday in the cross examina tion by Mr. Bellinger thht it will be assailed. Foundations were laid for various contradictions. W. C L?rick was another eye-witness introduced, an eye-witness who spent half an hour communing with himself, according to his testimony, in front of the opera house before the shooting on January 14. It was necessary to recall Mr. L?rick to the stand to ex plain that wnen he said the arrest of the prisoner was effected on the op posite side of the street from him, he merely mennt to say that it was made "16 or 20 steps" from him and on lb I side of the street nearest to him. Q/.?es tlons asked by Mr. Bellinger of the ne*s?4iad he ever been charged with stealing a watch, ret imed the property and compromised by a money pay ment; and had he over been charged with stealing a pistol, put up a forfeit and neglected to appear and vindicate himself?were ruled out upon legal grounds by Judge Gary. The defense placed on the stand a third eye-witness, Chief Clerk Wilson of the comptroller general's office. Mr. Wilson bore himself well on the stand. He was not especially close to the shooting when It occurred, he saw a man, Btandlng two to two and a half feet from the outside of the pavement, with hand extended transversely across tho sidewalk with a pistol In it, and simultaneously heard a shot. He also remembeis seeing a man somewhat in front of the man with the pistol. I3y the witness Holsenback It was testified that Mr. Gonzales turned to wards the inside or wall side of the pavement. Yet Mr. Wilson was sworn for the defense. Mr. Crawford ex amined this witness. A member of the legislature from Spartanburg was sworn for the de fense, Mr. Mahaffey. A member of the legislature from Spurtanburg ' was sworn for the State some days ago, two In fact, Mr. Horace Bomar and Hr. S. T. D. Lancaster. Mr. Mahaffey's tes timony speaks for itself. Its object ap parently was to show that what Dr. Lancaster was positive was a pistol handle in the prisoner's pocket might have been the neck of a bottle. Mr. Mahaffey saw the neck of a bottle, and acordlng to his testimony, It contained whiskey, sticking out of the pocket of the lieutenant governor of South Caro lina. Mr. Mahaffey's testimony may unpleasantly recall to the public mind some of the "abusive editorials" that appeared In South Carolina papers last summer?but that Is another story. Mr. Mahaffey did not'seek to shirk the reputation of a man who understands something about whiskey. The main point is the contrast between Dr. S. T. D. Lancaster of Spartanburg and Mr. Jesse Mahaffey, both members of the South Carolina house of representa tives. Wherein that contrast lies Is not to be specified here. Dr. Lancaster Is well known throughout the State. So Is Mr. Mahaffey. Each side in the trial has a Spartanburg legislative witness. Let the people of the State who know these two men consider the two speci mens and take their choice. Senator Douglass of Union was the first witness examined for either side who was not cross examined. He is a witness for the defense. His testimony given yesterday will probably not be Impeached. The Inference from yesterday's tes timony Is that James H. Tillman fired upon N. G. Gonzales because the latter had his hands in his pockets and rammed his right hand deeper In his pocket. The testimony all appears In the stenographic report and no Intelli gent reader will fall to gather a fairly correct estimate from Its perusal. It speaks for itself. Other witnesses who testified yester day were James Davis of Edgefteld, C. L. Iilease of Newberry, of counsel for the defense, who had his name, of his own motion, stricken from the roll of counsel for the defense, after he had testified; Mrs. Mary A. Evans of Newberry, George W. Ly hrand and R. P. Sox. Mr. Blease's testimony was principally directed to that of Dr. E. L. Adams for the State and was generally to the ef fect that threats quoted by Dr. Adams were conditioned by Tillman on his be ing first attacked by Mr. Gonzales. The audience yesterday was about as large or small as usual. When the prisoner took the stand it was some what larger than earlier In the day. The people of Lexington continue to manifest no keen interest in the trial and many a minor cause has attracted assemblages many times as great. The Indications point to the closing of the testimony for the defense at an early day, perhaps today, but this is conjectural. The Jury seems to be enduring their long confinement well. Judge Gary Is ever considerate of their comfort and gives therf? an occasional period of re laxation?which is enjoyed by others connected with the trial not less than by the Jury. Lexington, Oct. 9.?The defense closed Its case In the trial of James H. Till man this afternoon and the State com menced Its testimony in reply. The prisoner was on the witness stand until the recess for dinner at 1.30 p. m. and again for a few minutes after the re cess. No noticeable change appeared in his demeanor from that of yesterday; he has displayed the sa ne composure that has characterized his behavior throughout the trial, and even when In the cross examination he was con fronted with a letter addressed to the late edtior in 1892, written by himself and containing a more or less direct contradiction to a positive statement he had just uttered, It did not seem to disconcert him. The letter and the statements appear in the stenographic report. Asked to illustrate the manner in which he drew his pistol, the pris oner complied readily and displayed a familiarity with the weapon in evi dence, the weapon with which he shot Mr. Gonzales, which was Interesting to observe. It must be confessed that the prisoner appeared distinctly graceful in the manipulation of the deadly instru ment which Is still a comparative stranger even to experts In handling firearms In South Carolina. As far as the audience could judge, the prison er's mastery of its fine points was suf ficiently exemplified. There was no awkwardness, no hesitation, and seem ingly no reluctance. Indeed, from the prisoner's point of view there was pos sibly no reason for any. Mr. Bellinger was courteous but unsparing in his cross examination, and the prisoner was courteous in his replies. What Mr. Bellinger accomplished and what the prisoner's chief counsel and law partner, Mr. Croft, accomplished, for their respective sides to tho contro versy, and what tho prisoner himself accomplished In the results of hie or deal, are fully disclosed in the detailed report. W. T. Hyatt, head fireman and as sistant to the engineer at the State capltol, was sworn. He created a small sensation. He swore, and swore it with emphasis on his cross examina tion, that tho late editor or The State was four and a half feet tall or less. He also ewore that on the day preced ing the shooting he saw Mr. Gonzales in the State house, "leaning over to spit," with a pistol, a little pistol which might have been a 32-calibre pistol, showing from his hip pocket. "Did Mr. Gonzales wear glasses?" he was asked. He was "sure that he did not on that occasion." He was also sure that the man he referred to was Mr. Gonzales, but he could not recall whether or not he had a moustache, or the oolor of his hair, he was four and a half feet tall or less, and he was certain that he did not wear glasses that day. Later Mr. Nel son inquired of tho witness how the height of the man he saw compared with his height, and the witness said that it was about the same. Neverthe less, four and a half feet was the fig ure he had mentioned and which he stuck to manfully under Mr, Craw ford's sui<ve but insistent questions. When the court opened the prisoner was on the stand and an argument of some length took place as to whether or not he should be permitted to deny the truth of the editorial charges made against him. Attorneys for the de fense made Impassioned speeches pro testing against the denial to the pris oner of the opportunity to defend his good name from these charges, be fore the court and in evidence. Mr. Bel linger made the point that If the evi dence of the truth or falsity of the ed itorials were admitted on the part of the defense, would not the converse be equally admissible, namely evidence of the truth of the editorial charges? Mr. Crawford, after declaring the well known principle of law, that words, however provocative, did not excuse an ?esault, said with force that in the lifetime of the late editor the prisoner had had ample opportunity for settling the matter of the truth or fulsity of the charges. The courts were open either on the criminal or olyll side for the trial of causes for libel and In that way the prisoner could have had his remedy. Judge Gary took the position that the evidence would be admissible to show the attitude of mind of the defendant, bow bo was Impressed by the editorials and that It could come In, for that pur pose, as original evidence. It is no criticism on the view taken by the Judge to say that he seemed to reach It rather Independently and without great assistance from the eloquent ap peals of the attorneys for the defense. After the examination of the witness Hyatt the defense closed Its testimony. A number of witnesses summoned for the defense were present in Lexington yesterday but were not put upon the stand. Presumably some or all of them will be hereafter, to meet the attacks on reputation being made by the State on ot least one of the defense's wit nesses. To the view of a mere observer, the case for the defense in testimony may be divided Into two parts. One of these consists of testimony of a number of persons to whom it would appear from what they said that Mr. Gonzales talked somewhat freely, even volubly, of his sentiments towards the prison er and In the presence of whom he uttered threats. To his friends and constant associates Mr. Gonzales was undoubtedly o reticent man upon sub jects of a private nature. To the friends of the prisoner he was often voluntarily and amicably confidential. It would not be proper for a newspaper man to say that this phase of Mr. Gonzales' character seems, as revealed at this late day, preposterous, for the witnesses were pn their oath: but It Is only stating a fact that to him It ap-1 pears amazing and more?yes, miracu lous. When a man Is dead, even his friends may learn something about his life never suspected from the most unsuspected source?even from those who estimated bis height at four feet and six Inches. I The other division of the defense's j case is the story of their eye-witnesses. This may be said to rest chiefly on the' accounts of James H. Tlllman and i Richard Holsonback. L?rick and Chief Clerk Wilson of the comptroller's office ! were the only other eye-witnesses I sworn for the defense. If the prisoner be acquitted It will not be due to the testimony of Wilson?a man who bore himself well on the stand and created a fine Impression on the minds of the spectators. He did not see the affair In the most favorable light for the prisoner?far from It. As for Richard Holsonback, ns was foreshadowed yesterday, his reputation for truth and veracity was assailed. Mark Toney of Johnston and Tlllman Denny of Johnston and W. J. Huiett of Johnston and William Toney of John ston and M. W. Clark of Johnston and John "Red" Williams of Johnston and Lewis Holmes of Johnston would not believe him?no not upon his oath. Mr. Nelson cleverly got It out of the wit ness Holmes that he had voted for Holsonback for coroner and, In fact, had "brought him out" as a candidate. Mr. Holmes explained that It was done "as a joke." It will be remembered that Holsonback himself volunteered the information on the witness stand that he could not read. A coroner who could not read! Does the "joke" ex planation of Mr. Holmes seem unlikely in the light of Holsonbaek's own volun tary remark as to his attainments? The possibility Is that witnesses in numbers will go upon the stand to swear that Holsonback may be relied upon?that his word Is as good as his bond, perhaps. However, will they be able to reinstate his reputation for veracity? Few duties could be more unpleasant than that of swearing that a neighbor is unreliable, that the sanc tity of an oath will not bind him. No good man ever performed such a duty save with sorrow and reluctance. No honest man ever performed It but for the reason that as a duty It was su preme. When a man's character Is once firmly established In a community ?in Johnston or elsewhere?can men be found to swear that his oath Is not worthy of respect unless they be ac tuated by personal malice or Interest? Coula three or four good men be found In Columbia, for example, with no In terest In common, to swear against the good name of any other good man In Columbia? Who will say that Tlllman Denny, Mark Toney and the rest are conspirators against the life of James H. Tlllman? Who will say that they are conplrators against the good name of this man Holsonback?this man who, to use his own words, "may have trotted" from the State house steps to overtake James H. Tlllman a minute or two before he shot N. G. Gonzales? Unless humanity is hopelessly de praved, the oath of five men against another's reputation for veracity counts for more than the oaths of a hundred in Its support. Why? Be cause the oath against a neighbor's reputation, If It proceed from good mo tives, requires courage. To wvvear to a man's good character Is easy. How few will refuse to give others a "recom mendation?" Suppose a man applied for a position of trust in Columbia and a thousand good men endorsed him while a dozen good men denounced him as totally untrustworthy even when solemnly sworn?would an ordinarily prudent man employ him? Undoubtedly It Is a serious, a grave thing, to go Into the witness box and swear a man's good name away, for the very reasons stated?because It Is infinitely easier to stain, to smirch, to destroy, than to erase, to wash away, to build up. It Is only stating a fact of human so ciety, of human life, to say that the work done by these witnesses as to Holsonbaek's credibility yesterday can never be undone?no, not by all Edge field county?and that regardless of this trial. Are Mark Toney and "Red" Williams and Lewis Holmes and Tlll man Denny and William Toney and W. J. Huiett and M. W. Clark men who would lightly trlflo with the reputation for truthfulness of their neighbor and fellow citizen were it stainless? One more word. In reviewing this trial, forever and forever the mind re verts to a picture. That picture was drawn by a woman?a woman In black. Closer than all others save the acci dental companions of the slayer, In the wisdom of Divine Providence, she was placed to the slain. This no witness on either side has denied. She has drawn the ploture with lines so sharp that it will never wear from the minds of those who saw her on the stand, for it is graven, graven upon them. She is looking at Mr. Gonzales, watch ing him "with the view of speaking to him," "to catch his eye." He is almost abreast of the trio, "another step" will place him upon Its line, he is "taking the step" and his countenance Is "placid," "perfectly calm," he seems "absorbed In his thoughts." The crack of the pistol and the picture vanishes! If vaporous fogs becloud the vision as troops of witnesses follow each other Ho the stand?back to it and ever back to it, the mind of the spectator finds Itself turning for relief and rest?back to the testimony of Mrs. Emma C. Melton! Lexington, Oct. 10.?In the trial of James H. Tlllman, charged with mur der, the testimony is all in and the argument will begin Monday morn ing. Each side will have the equiva lent of a day, seven hours of time for addressing the jury and Judge Gary announced that on Wednesday morn ing he would charge the Jury and do llver the case to it. Today was consumed in the hearing of witnesses Introduced by the State against the credibility of Richard Hol sonback, the witness upon whose tes timony the defense's cuse seems large ly to rest, and against the credibility of T. D. Mitchell, and A. J. Flowers, who testified to threats by Mr. Gon zales, and also in hearing the testi mony of witnesses in support of the credibility of Holsonbuek. Mitchell was recalled to the stand to testify In his own behalf, after the terrific at tacks on his reputation by five or six witnesses who live In Orungi'burg and Columbia. The proceedings generally were char acterized by the immense latitude, lon gitude, urea, space, variety, volume and detail of the testimony heard. Concerning some of these witnesses, testimony us to religion, politics, and pedigree were touched upon either in the questions or answcr.s. Illustrat ing this and without intending to pat In any way upon the sound ness or weakness of Judge Ga ry's view, he delivered one ruling that created an Impression nothing short of startling. John Liv ingstone of Orangeburg was on the stand and had sworn that he would not believe T. D. Mitchell on his oath. Mr. Nelson entered upon the cross ex amination and inquired If he supported Tom Johnson of Sumter for congress against J. William Stokes of Orange burg. Mr. Elliott objected. Mr. Nel son said substantially that It was de sired to know whether or not the wit ness wns a white man in a white man's community supporting a backer of ne groes. Mr. Bellinger protested vehe mently; factional and State politics had already been Injected Into the trial and the name of Senator Tillman had been dragged In; had tho time come In South Carolina when a man's credi bility In the courts turned upon how he voted? ? Judge Gary ruled and ruled promptly In the following words, as reported by the stenographer: "Generally speaking, Mr. Bellinger, I think your view the correct one, but under our peculiar conditions down here It may affect a man's character? I will not say anything further before the Jury. I will not state what I In tended to say before tho jury, but I think this is comoetent." Whether or not this ruling of the special judge Is to carry with It the full weight of all that Its language Implies Is not here to be discussed. A little examination and reflection will show to the average reader that It was Important and far-reaching. If it should be appealed to In the future in tho trial of causes In South Carolina. It is not unlikely that it will excite comment beyond the borders of this State. Later In the day, the prosecution appealed to the precedent'sot when J. B. Odom of Johnston was on the stand to assist in rebuilding the reputation for truth and veracity of Richard Holsonback, who appears to be the especial pet, prized and precious witness of the defense. Replying to n question by counsel for the State, Odom admitted to being a Republican. Mr. Nelson asked If he were a national or a State Republican and he said that he was a Republican in national politics. When the court opened Judge Gary announced that on reconsideration he had concluded that he went a little too far In excluding evidence us to the eye sight of Mr. Gonzales, and he stated that he would not allow the prosecu tion to be prejudiced on that account. He would, therefore, allow time for obtaining witnesses on that point If the prosecution so desired. The prosecu tion did desire such witnesses, but later In the day stated that they could not reach Lexington until the afternoon train arrived. An agreement was then reached and read In court, both sides consenting, for the admission of the following as evidence and as true: "That N. O. Gonzales habitually wore glasses, was near-sighted; bis eyesight was so defective that he could not see sufficiently well without glasses? to walk the streets without them." A feature of the day was the strong attack .upon the reputation for truth telling of T. D. Mitchell, unanswered save by himself, who will he remember ed as the man who accosted Mr. Gon zales, so he said, on the street at night and broached the subject of Tillman with Mr. Gonzales. It was Mitchell's first and only conversation with Mr. Gonzales, to whom he had never been Introduced. Mitchell testified that Mr. Gonzales told him "If Tillman batted his eye at him ho would fill him so full of lead that he could not tote It off." Chief of Police Fischer of Orangeburg, Mr. Livingstone of the same town, C. B. Simmons and Mr. E. W. Parker of Columbia were among those who swore that they would not believe Mitchell on his oath. The climacteric point of this line of testimony, however, was reached when Mi. J. A. Saliey, a cotton oil mill superintendent In Orange burg, sworn for the State, declared that he would not believe Mitchell on his oath and stated In answer to Mr. Elliott's queries that he had been sum moned to Lexington by tho defense, their expectation being that he would swear to Mitchell's good character. Later Mitchell was recoiled to the stand and allowed to testify In his own bchnlf and related that Livingstone had hod him prosecuted for violating the fish lnws. In order to obtain a reward, and that he had opposed Fischer for chief of police. Mr. Salley, he sold, had supported him for the latter office. Counsel for tho defense, before Mitchell was recalled, appealed to the court to let him testify as to the alleged animosity hnrbored against him by the witnesses and said in effect that ho was a stranger and taken by surprise. The testimony of Mr. Salley must ln I deed have been a surprise. When the witness, Mitchell, was on the stand his demeanor towards Mr. Bellinger was not of a friendly nature, while that gentlemnn was conducting the cross examination. Two or three witnesses for the defense have been "ugly" towards Mr. Bellinger. One or two have threatened him. Mr. Bellinger has borne it all with admirable self control but It was ploln today he felt that patience had ceased to be a vir tue. Nevertheless, he did not lose his patience and what he said was with his customory calmness and decision. He was positive but rigidly courteous. Seldom In the progress of a case has a lawyer been the subject of such demonstrative outbursts from the wit nesses as Mr. Bellinger has been dur ing this week, and the burden of taking core of himself has beon upon himself. He has been more than equal to It. No witness for the defense has received from Mr. Bellinger such treatment as Mr. August Kohn received last week and It may be here remarked that with the ense closed neither the reputation of Mr. Kohn or of any other State's witness has been attacked In the pro gress of this trial. One additional witness was sworn by the State this morning who declared that he would not believe Holsonback on his oath. The Importance of Hol sonback to the defense of James H. Tillman can scarcely be overestimated. Before the shooting he saw Tillman "about at Gervais street." The witness was then at the State house steps. While Tillman and his companions were crossing Gervols street, that Is, Just as they crossed to the corner of the transfer station, Holsonback over took them, walking rapidly or "trot ting," as he said. Such was his testi mony. The defense presented about 20 witnesses from Edgefteld and the Johnston neighborhood, with one from Voucluse, in his behalf. Meanwhile Mark Toney, Lewis Holmes, Tlllman R. Denny and others declare that they would not believe him on his oath. | Others swear that he made to them statements qbout the shooting which do not square with his testimony at this trial. It seems unfortunate that the witness who claims to have heard "the white feather" threat, who claims to have told Mr. White that the man who made It was Mr. Gonzales, that the witness who told Tlllman about It und thut the witness who Is the prin cipal eye-witness for the State, the. only witness except L?rick and the prisoner who claims to hi" e seen the shoving in of the bund Mr. Gon zales, und who doer, not / whether Mr. Gonzales wort: glo or not, though he Is sure his thum. were ex posed, Is u man whose cha.acter for truth is not impregnable in and around his home. To know as much about a case as Holsonback claims to know, one should have a reputation for verac ity above the average of the best. As the confidante of Mr. Gonzales on one day and the witness protective of the prisoner's case of self-defense the next, Holsonback demonstrated versatility, at least. When the defense announced that Its testimony In reply to the attacks on the character of their wit. >s was concluded one of the attorr. "or the defense announced that th ^efense would propose that the cast be sub mitted to the jury without argument if the prosecution would agree. This sug gestion Mr. Bellinger promptly and em phatically declined, reminding the prosecution that Mr. Johnstone had a few minutes before declared that the defense would "force the State to the Jury" and "lash It to the gladiatorial sands." Mr. Thurmond suggested that each side have three hours for argu ment and then Judge Gary suggested that each have a day. On its face, the suggestion of elimi nating argument from the trial would appear fair to all sides. The prosecu tion in declining it probably had in mind that a full week has elapsed since its case was before the jury. Ordinar ily even a murder trial consumes one or two days, possibly three, and the im pressions of the State's testimony are not so likely to fade in that time. This trial Is unique in the courts of South Carolina as to time consumed, and the State's account of the killing was given by witnesses in the first week of the trial. Between the practical closing of the State's case and the beginning of that of the defense an intermission of three days elapsed, when the case was not dally and directly before the Jury. Hence the State would have been at a distinct disadvantage in going to the trial without argument to freshen the State's side of the controversy In the minds of the 12 Jurors. THE SULTAN COMING TO TERMS. lie Im AiIJiinUiik <he Lour Held Up a m,-i Iran CliilniK?The Wnr MhliiM Stnndliifr Jly. Constantinople, Oct. 11.?Two more claims of the American legation have been satisfactorily settled, the more important being the issue of a fir man granting to Dr. Banks premission to excavate the ruins of Blsmah in Mezoptamla. The claim ban been pend ing for three years, its settlement being constantly thwarted by a German pro fessor engaged in similar work. The second question settled concerns property belonging to the wife of the American consul at Smyrna upon which immigrants have established them selves and which the government now agrees to purchase. The negotiations regarding other questions between Turkey and the United States are also making progress. Some powers are showing irritation at the prolonged stay of the American warships at Beirut, but United States Minister Lelshmnn maintains an atti tude of patient and steady pressure and is obtaining satisfaction for his de mands without any unnecessary blus ter such as would be calculated to trouble his friendly relations with the Ottoman government. More Promlnen. Soflt. Bulgaria, Oct. 11.?Negotiations are proceeding between the Bulgarian and Turkish governments for the re patriation of the 20,000 fugitives from Macedonia now in Bulgarian territory. The porte offers to take all the refu gees back under the joint supervision, of the Bulgarian and Turkish function aries, but there are many difficulties In I the way, owing to the destruction of their homes and means of subsistence and the doubt whether they will be willing to return. Regarding the frontier incidents the porte has informed the Bulgarian gov ernment that the sultan has ordered a commission to make the strictest in vestigation and punish the guilty offi cers. THE WORK OF TRAIN WRECKERS. 10 no it to Slaughter ii Trnlu I.ond of People on ?in- Southern Near Dituvllle, Vn. Danville, Vn., Oct. 11.-A bold at tempt wos made this afternoon to wreck passenger train No. 1 on the Norfolk division of the Southern about three miles east of this city. The track had been piled with crosstles and a fish plate. The train was running at a very slow rate of speed and but for this fact a disastrous wreck undoubt edly would have occurred. The ob struction was placed at the end of a high trestle and the disaster of three weeks ago would have been duplicated. Fortunately the track was straight at this point and the engineer got his train down to such a speed that when he struck the ties no damage resulted. This train from Norfolk Is usually a little late and hnd It been so this after noon would have reached this point after dark. It Is supposed the wreckers knew of this when they placed the ob struction on the track. There Is a strong opinion that there is a gang of train wreckers In this locality and It has been nn open secret that the rail road company believe the wreck of No. 97 here three weeks ago was caused by an obstruction placed on the track at the bridge. The attempt this after noon gives color to the theory. There was a large number of passongers on the train. MISTAKKN I <>n A IM HCl.AH. Man With nn Unhnlnnced Mind Shot in EttranKe Howie. Trenton, N. J., Oct. 11.?Henry Brown, a retired hotel keeper and a man of considerable means, was mis taken for a burglar early this morn ing, and was shot by Peter Kotz Into whose house Brown had forced an en trance. Brown was shot twice in the head and his physicians havo no hope for his recovery. Brown's act In break ing into Kotz's house Is unexplainable except on the ground of Insanity. Brown was acting strangely In the early part of the evening and It is said to have been drinking quite heavily. Kots lives In a suburb remote from Brown's home, and the two men and their families were entirely unac quainted. A SHIP ASHOHR. The Norwegian Ship Oonatnne* Round for PenvarolN, Fla. -Amsterdam, Oct. 11.?It is believed that the Norwegian ship Constance, which went ashore during a gale yes terday at Calandaoog on .the western coast of North Holland, will prove a total wreck. The Constance was bound to Pensncola, Fla., from Ham burg, whence she sailed Sept. 29. Capt. Kief and the crew of the vessel were saved. SALIENT POINTS OF THE TESTIMONY. A Resume of the Evidence at the Tillman Trial. POLITICAL F?ITH OF NO EFFECT ? I Koine ItcflrcttouN of One Who linn Closely Followed the Cane I>ny by Day. BY W. \V. Ii V I.I,. With the testimony all heard in the ease of James H. Tillman and the arguments about to begin, it may be Interesting to emphasize some of the-vr^ points that have made themselves con spicuously plain in the proceedings. In spite of the injection of politics into the trial, In spite of the dragging In of Senator B. It. Tillman's name, H> -~ has been demonstrated sufficiently that many men of the former Reform or Tlllmanlte faction have had no more sympathy with the shooting of Mr. Gonzales than members of the faction that he was formerly identified with. Look at the example of Talblrd?a Re former and a? State senator. It was to be expected that he would tell the truth to the best of his ability, to the best of his recollection, and that Is what, with out doubt, he did. Adams and Dowllng, too, were Tillman's friends?closs friends. They are among the strongest witnesses for the State. This Is no matter for surprise. Politics does not affect the sanctity of an honest man's oath. 4 What the political views of Mr. Wil son, chief clerk In the ofllce of Comp troller General Jones, may be I do not 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 corrobo rating the theory of the State, it strengthened the dying declaration of Mr. Gonzales?it placed Tillman from two to two and a half feet only from the outside of the sidewalk and made the direction of his aimed weapon transverse, across the Bldcwalk, to wards the wall of the transfer station. At the ball hearing, one W. H. Halt made an attidavlt, claiming that he was an eye-witness to the shooting and corroborating In "every particular" the account given by Richard Holsonback. Such the record shows. Hall was pres ent at the trial last week. He was present when L?rick was on the stand or Immediately after. The defense did not swear him. Why? Was the hard lesson of Lorlck's testimony enough? And yet Holsonback and L?rick are the only eye-witnesses, except the prisoner, who In any degree support the defense. Holsonback's character has been at tacked. L?rick was not allowed to answer questions imputing that more than once he had been charged with larceny. The witness Hyutt for the defense swore that he saw a pistol in Mr. Gon zales' hip pocket the day before the shooting and the one thing about the appearance of Mr. Gonzales that he was emphatically sure of was that he did not wear glasses. The defense ad mits ns true that Mr. Gonzales without glasses could not see sufficiently "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 f&f away can you tell that a man wearing glasses Is "eyeing" you? Senators Brown, Talblrd, Mrs. Mel ton, Mr. Llde, August Sc hied man and others testify that Mr. Gonzales was almost abreast of the two senators and Tillman when the shot was fired. The course of the bullet proves It. Tillman told Spann Dowllng at the jail that the bullet would shoot straight. Clark and others swear that Holson back gave to them statements about the shooting that conflict with his bail affidavit and statement on the witness stand. Holsonback declares that when Tillman was about at Gervais street he was at the State house steps and over took Tillman by the time of the shoot ing; while Tillman was crossing the street! Witness White did not know Mr. Gonzales; his testimony as to the "white feather" throat is wholly de pendent on that of Holsonback. Tillman swore in his testimony that he wrote the Wlnnsboro News and Herald article in 1890 and aeknowie?g' a moment later his own letter of 18i> saying that he did not write lt. ^ Tillman swore that W. H. Newbold ? told him that he might expect Mr. Gon zales, If he drew his pistol, to draw It from his side coat pocket. Newbold was at the trial but was not sworn. In his bail affidavit Tillman swore that he knew nothing of Mr. Gonzales' habit of carrying his hands In his coat pockets. The case for the defense substan tially Is that Tillman had heard of throats by Mr. Gonzales. That he was expec ting an attack. That he believed from The State's editorials that Its edi tor was in a frame of mind to kill him. That he saw Mr. Gonzales on the out side of the sidewalk. That Mr. Gon zales turned to the Inside and thrust his hands deeper Into his pockets In a way that he interpreted an offensive movement. That he placed his hand on his pistol when he first saw Mr. Gon zales. That the turn by Mr. Gonzales brought him towards Tillman. That Mr. Gonzales' thumbs were out when Tillman first saw him and that ho plunged his whole hand into his pocket. That he fired because he believed that he was about to be shot. Why should Edltor Gonzales wish to have killed Tillman? Tillman was not in his way. As a candidate for office he had been defeated and dis credited. He was In nobody's way. His term of office ns lieutenant gover nor was about to expire. To kill a mon would have meant supreme trouble and sacrifice on tho part of tho editor of The State. It would have meant, speaking from a purely selfish point of view, at least serious if not permanent interruption to his career as a newspaper editor. Five months pre vious Tillman's defeat had been effec ted. Tillman's personality had been dismissed from his paper and from his mind. Tillman's attacks on Gonzales had been wholly harmless. His denun ciation from the stump had counted for nothing. Everybody In South Caro lina knows this. If Mr. Gonzales had shot Tillman, If he were In the dock today Instead of Tillman, his defense might have been insanity, for any jury would have said that an act so foolish on the part of Mr. Gonzales could not have proceeded from a sound mind. Mr. Gonzales had no pistol when he was shot. In It probable that a man of his Intelligence would have behaved as a man wearing one? Would he have thought to bluff Tillman? No, an unarmed man was shot down in the streets of Columbia. The witness so close to Mr. Gonzales that almost she could have touched htm testifies that his face "was placid, perfectly calm and that he seemed absorbed In thoughts when the shot was fired." Was Mr. Gonzales looking towards TII1 man when the ball struck him?