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 reasoni