tire--a neat fitting Prince Albert suit
of black diagonal, with a black cravat tied in a simple knot over the
snowy shirt bosom and the turn-down collar--was absolutely faultless.
The occasion was one to try the soul of a strong man, but as he looked
over the court room and glanced into the faces of many of his bitterest
enemies, his expression was stoical, and he shook hands in a cheerful
manner with several friends who were in court to show their allegiance
to him. As counsel, he had Attorneys Trude, Windes and McArdle--the two
latter his law partners--ex-Senator Duncan and Hiram Gilbert. The people
were represented by State's Attorney Longenecker and his assistant,
Frank Baker, the former occupying his favorite attitude of leaning over
the bar of the court while the arguments were in progress.

It was developed at the outset that the unconditional release of the
prisoner was not desired, but that it was simply sought to secure him
his liberty upon substantial bail. The proceedings opened with the
reading of the petition to which Mr. Sullivan had affixed his signature.
In this he declared that the evidence before the coroner's jury, and
upon which his arrest was based, had been wholly insufficient to warrant
that action; that there was no competent evidence, direct or
circumstantial, tending to prove that he was guilty of the murder of
Patrick H. Cronin, or an accessory thereto, or had guilty knowledge
thereof, or knowledge or thought of conspiracy to accomplish the same;
that the verdict was based upon a large amount of incompetent and wholly
irrelevant testimony calculated to create prejudice, and that the
verdict rendered, so far as it reflected upon the conduct of himself
(Sullivan) was the result of passionate prejudice, created by the
admission of such evidence. The document concluded with a declaration
that the petitioner was not guilty of the crime with which he had been
charged by the verdict, and that he had had no connection whatever with
the murder of Dr. Cronin.

ARGUING ON THE PETITION.

The arguments were begun by States Attorney Longenecker, who demurred to
the application on several technical grounds, dwelling especially on
the point that the question as to the guilt or innocence of the accused
was a question to be decided in another court. The statement of the
accused regarding the insufficiency of the evidence was, he urged, a
conclusion which he was incompetent to arrive at.

[Illustration]