like men who are thoroughly imbued with a sense of your
responsibility. You have listened attentively to all the details of
the testimony. You have listened with admiration to the discussion
of the testimony by the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded
me. You can not have failed to note the radical difference between
the method of treating the evidence by counsel for the defendant
and by counsel for the people. One is wrong, altogether wrong; the
other is right, altogether right. The question is an important one.
You will hear my discussion on it and the discussion of Brother
Mills, and then you will hear the Judge pronounce upon the method
of treating the evidence. You will pay no attention to what I say
about the law unless it commends itself to your reason, and unless
what I shall say is afterward given in principle or substance by
the Court. It must be that the method of treating the
circumstantial evidence has been pointed out clearly. The books are
filled with decisions, and our judges can not be radically
different in treating it. In England and America they treat it
alike, and therefore, I say the prosecution is altogether wrong, or
we are altogether wrong. The gentlemen for the prosecution tell you
that the law of circumstantial evidence is represented by the fable
of the farmer and the bunch of fagots, which fable was intended by
Aesop, and by all reproducers of Aesop, to illustrate, not
circumstantial evidence, but the fact that in unity there is
strength, or, to use the expression sometimes used in politics or
war,'United we stand, divided we fall.' We claim that that is
altogether wrong, and, if I am right, they are altogether wrong in
their method, and, if wrong in their method, my inference, is they
dare not apply the legal method. Judge Wing, Mr. Donahoe and myself
have applied the analytical method, which is adopted by every
scientific man and every searcher after truth. I propose,
gentlemen, to consume this afternoon in discussing the question as
to which is right in their method of considering the evidence. Mr.
Ingham commented upon the rule as laid down by the Supreme Court of
Illinois, and then quoted the instruction given by Judge Wing in a
case in which he appeared for the prosecution. You are convinced,
as jurors,