« PreviousContinue »
but we could not get him until after the testimony had closed for the government, except the introduction of rebutting testimony, and then it was not admissible. But we offered him. There was one light in the back shop on the counter, 410 where the pitcher of water was, and they had one side light in the front shop where they were baiting trawls. In this back shop was the stove from which the front shop was warmed. With these two men, then and there at work all night, going in and out for water, and Loud upon that 415 lounge, you are asked to believe the most absurd statement by the prisoner, uncorroborated, as it is, by one single fact or one single witness, that he entered that shop unseen and slept upon that lounge unnoticed from two o'clock till daylight! Why did he say he lay upon that lounge? Why did 420 he not say he went upstairs to bed? When he came in that morning he committed himself to the lounge, or committed himself to the fact that he was in the house. He said to Mrs. Johnson, “Did you hear me when I came in last night ?” “No, sir,” she replied, “and your bed was not 425 tumbled.” Now what must he say? Where else could he go to lie down, but on that solitary lounge? He forgot Hontvet and Christensen were there at work. “Oh, but I lay on the lounge,” said he. "How is that? Hontvet and Christensen were there at work,” said Mrs. Johnson. 430 Then he was in a dilemma, but he sticks to the statement that he lay upon the lounge, contradicted by all the testimony in the case. Then, again, he tells you that he came in at that back door ; that Mrs. Johnson always left it open for him, when he was out late. Mrs. Johnson testified 435 that she bolted that door at past twelve o'clock that night; and her daughter held the light for her when she did it. She had usually left that door open for Wagner and Kenniston to come in at, when they were out late at night baiting trawls; but that night Hontvet and Christensen were in 440 the front room, and the front door was unlocked; so she said, “I guess I won't leave the whole house open,” and
went and bolted that back door, and her daughter held the light. Kenniston came in at half past twelve o'clock, as he testified, went to the sink, which is by the door, to wash 445 after baiting trawls, and he said that he saw that that door was bolted. Again, Mrs. Johnson testified that she was up first in the morning, at half past five, and Hontvet and Christensen were there then, and that she unbolted that door herself that morning. Are these witnesses impeached ? 450 Is their testimony impaired? Is any confidence to be placed in human testimony, when corroborated by so many circumstances, by so many witnesses corroborating each other? Yes, impeached by the testimony of this one man here, on trial for his life, and who has such a powerful reason to im- 455 peach it; by nobody else.
Now, Mrs. Hontvet tells you that the man who killed Karen and Anethe was Louis Wagner. She saw him through the open window, saw him in the bright moonlight. True, , she saw only the side of his face, for he had his hat down 460 over his eyes. She saw his form, his figure,
- his shape, and his size; she was close to him, within three or four feet. She heard Anethe cry, “Louis.” She went to the open window, and there he stood, “So near that he could lay his elbow on the window-sill.” Did she not recognize him ? 465 She tells you she did. She tells you “That man was Louis Wagner.” He was well known to her, had lived in her family seven months. The learned counsel tells you she never would have thought of Louis Wagner, in connection with the deed, if Anethe had not cried “Louis !” — had not sug- 470 gested him to her mind; and hence that her recognition is no more than the recognition of Anethe. Well, what was the recognition of Anethe? Did not Anethe know him? Did she not recognize him? She saw him, called him by name, exclaimed, “Louis, Louis,” many times. No one 475 had suggested his name to her mind; his name had not been mentioned. On the contrary, mark the point, while Anethe was shut up in her bed-room, she had heard the name of
John only. "John scared me," "John kill me," and thought it was John, John Hontvet. She jumped out of 480 the window to escape from John, and there expected to meet nobody else but John. But when she got out of the house and saw the murderer's face, saw him face to face in the moonlight, she changed her mind and called him Louis ! Did she know him and recognize him, under these favorable 485 circumstances? Why did she not call him John? She knew it was Louis.
My learned friend argues that if both women had cried “Louis,” their recognition would have made a much stronger case, but as Karen cried “John,” and Anethe, “Louis,” it is 490 a balanced case. Infinitely stronger is the recognition of Anethe than if Karen also had cried “Louis." Karen saw him in the house in the darkened room, with the curtains down, a fact my learned friend had forgotten. In her fright half waking and half sleeping, she instinctively called him 495 “John,” because John was expected and no one else.
Gentlemen, you have seen Mrs. Hontvet on the stand; you have heard her testimony, and you must have been impressed with her perfect truthfulness. She told you everything just as it was, even connecting her husband's 500 name with the terrible deed. “John kill me.” John, her husband! Oh, the agony of that woman, for that moment. But she tells you all, keeping back nothing, though it renews to her the pangs of that night. If she had been untruthful,
. how easy to have said, Karen also called him Louis. If she 505 had so much desired the conviction of this prisoner, as has been suggested, would she not at least have kept back the name of her husband from connection with the terrible crime? But no, she tells the truth, the whole truth, keeping back nothing. John was the name she heard from Karen 510 and she tells you so.
Louis was the name she heard from Anethe and she tells you so.
In the curtained room, it was “John,” but out of doors, face to face, in the full moonlight, it was “Louis.”
MATERIAL FOR THE STUDY
The student should be able to expose the unsound reasoning in each of the following arguments by demonstrating that it violates one of the rules for the categorical syllogism and also by showing that it cannot satisfy the requirements for a diagram of a valid syllogism.
I. This coin is not gold; for
A. All is not gold that glitters; and
II. Republicans are not to be trusted; for
A. Partisans are not to be trusted; and
III. All institutions of higher learning grant the degree of
bachelor of arts; for
IV. Cheating in college examinations should not be
V. No cripple is an officer of the law; for
A. No cripple is a policeman; and
MATERIAL FOR THE STUDY
The student should be able to demonstrate the existence of a particular fallacy in each of the following pieces of reasoning : 1. He who harms another should be punished. He who
communicates an infectious disease to another person harms him. Therefore he who communicates such a dis
ease should be punished. 2. The power of the railroad employees in the field of trans
portation is supreme, inasmuch as they could tie up the whole country, because of the helplessness of the railroad
companies to resist their demands. 3. The United States should seek to build up the strongest
army and navy in the world; for no one has pointed
out any conclusive reason why this should not be done. 4. Colonies should not rebel against the mother country
for colonies are children, and children should obey their
parents. 5. No one can believe what he does not understand; there
fore there are no mysteries in true religion. 6. The United States should repeal its prohibition amend
ment; for George Washington, who was accustomed
to use liquor, was a man whom none could despise. 7. Only the good are fit to die; therefore, capital punish
ment is wrong. 8. The State of Maine and the State of Kansas found it
impossible to enforce a prohibition law; and, therefore, the United States can expect no better result.