time" intervened; another, that "it was not more than five or six seconds between the giving of the insult and the shot;" yet Mr. Marshall is not satisfied with this. So bloodthirsty does he consider his client, that he thinks if he had had his hand upon the weapon of death he could not have refrained from using it, the moment he laid his eyes upon his victim.

But we are asked, why we have sworn Sturgus as a witness and not examined him, as though there was something strange and mysterious in it. Sturgus knew nothing of the killing, and was not summoned here to testify against this prisoner, but against his brother, who is not on trial. I hope the gentlemen's minds are easy now on the subject, and that no visions of Sturgus and his big stick will hereafter disturb their dreams or impair their digestion. In return, I hope gentlemen will permit me to remind them of a similar interrogatory propounded to them by my associate counsel, but in relation to which they have thus far maintained a dignified silence. Why was William Ward sworn and not examined? Were they

afraid to trust the artlessness of childhood on that stand? There is an old adage, gentlemen, that children and fools speak the truth—and like most old adages it has its foundation in human experience. I must be permitted to say that I admire their sagacity in keeping him from the stand. You, gentlemen, will draw your own inferences.

Mr. Marshall tells you as matter of complaint, that when Barlow was undergoing the ordeal of cross-examination, a "low chuckle" ran around the court house among the audience. I noticed, gentlemen, the fact; I differ only in the name by which I would call it, and the feeling to which I would attribute it. There is a feeling, thank God, in the great human heart of the masses that revolts with horror at the exhibition of palpable, unblushing, and unmistakable perjury, and that feeling will find vent, no matter in what presence the crowd may find themselves. You may chain the limbs and seal the mouth, and yet the heart will find some means of utterance -and all who hear will understand the meaning. It was no "chuckle" of rejoicing that broke from the honest lips and

hearts of this audience, as they listened to a story that damned itself in the very telling. It was an irrepressible outbreak of honest indignation. I am sorry that gentlemen's nerves were so shocked by it; but I hope that with proper care and attention they will in due time recover from the effects of that "chuckle."

Mr. Marshall expended a vast amount of indignation upon the bare thought that it was possible for a man born in Kentucy to be bought or bribed to commit perjury. And yet, gentlemen, such things have happened again and again, and again. We do not however believe or intimate that Barlow was bought by Robt. J. Ward, Sr. If I thought so, be assured, gentlemen, I should not hesitate to say it; but believing otherwise, I will not do injustice to a gentleman whom I believe incapable of such an act. But, that Barlow offered himself for sale, no man can doubt. He denies that he said to Mr. Ward that "he was a poor man and could not afford to lose his time." But we prove that he told May and Sullivan that he did say so; and, above all, Mr. Ward himself swears that he did. That he expects compensation enough to take him to California from some one, I have no doubt. I wish California joy of her intended citizen; and I will give him one little piece of advice, and not charge him a copper for it. By all means let him change his name before he goes there. He will find the name of Barlow more inconvenient there than a blanket coat in August.

Mr. Marshall travels out of the record again to tell you, that never before has man been so visited and caressed in Hardin County, as has the prisoner in the lonely cells of his prison, and that he had made half the county his friends already. Well, gentlemen, if by making them his friends, he means that they are convinced of his innocence, I have only to say that those same friends keep very close at home, and don't come near the court house. Outside of some half dozen friends of the prisoner in town, I have yet to hear of the first man, woman, or child, who has attended this trial, who hesitates a moment in his opinion of the guilt of the prisoner. This

is all out of the record, gentlemen, I admit, and should have no weight with you; but when the other side attempt to create the impression that everybody outside of that jury box is waiting impatiently for a verdict of acquittal, I have a right to tell you what my observation has taught me as to public sentiment in the county. But, as to these visits at the jail: I, too, have heard something about them, and the manner in which they were brought about; but I did not dwell on the subject. What has it to do with this case, or the guilt or innocence of the prisoner? Less than nothing. It only proves, if true, what everybody knew before, that the people of Hardin County have warm and generous hearts; that they were willing to try and forget for a time the husband's guilt, that they might pay a passing tribute of admiration to the fond devotion of the wife, who strew, with a few fading flowers, the dark and thorny path his crime has destined her innocent feet to tread.

I have done with Mr. Marshall's argument. It reminded me of a brilliant piece of fireworks, with here a rocket darting up to heaven, and losing itself from sight in the far void; and there a revolving wheel, or Roman candle, challenging the wonder of the listening crowd, and lacking but one meritapplicability to the case. A few words for my friend, Gov. Helm, and I have done. Most of the positions assumed by him, and calling for a reply, I have already noticed at the appropriate stage of my argument, with which they had connection.

The Governor tells us in the outset of the argument that he himself was wonderfully excited against the Wards when he first heard of this transaction. I thank him for his candor. I had heard something of that "excitement"; for it was not a light hid under a bushel. What change has come over the spirit of his dream? He does not tell you that the facts as he first heard them are different from those in proof. Ah, gentlemen, there are a certain kind of spectacles that have the wonderful property of making all things look just as the wearer wishes them to look; and that which was a weazel be

fore, becomes "very like a whale," when looked at through their golden rims.

The Governor tells you that never before in his life has he heard it asserted as law, that a jury are bound to judge of facts without being influenced by feelings of compassion. He promised to show by abundance of authorities that such was not your duty, but he has cited but one case, that of Cain, as reported by Moses, in I believe the Second of Genesis. I have not the case in court, gentlemen, but have some recollection of the facts. The punishment of Cain, was by an ex post facto law, and in our day would be unconstitutional. He had never been forbidden to murder-he violated no law, and there was reason why mercy should be extended to him. But there is another anwswer to it-he was tried by the only tribunal on the universe, in which can safely be trusted the attributes of both justice and mercy at the same time. His trier was God himself, not a jury of weak and erring mortals. The laws have vested the right to extend mercy in another tribunal. It is with justice alone that you have to deal.

But the Governor asks why it was if Ward intended to kill Butler did he not shoot him in the dark. I am afraid he has not altogether gotten rid of that first "excitement," and that he has a worse opinion of his client's heart than even we of the prosecution have. But I have already stated more than once that we do not charge a fixed purpose to kill at all events. We charge a purpose to degrade by insults and blows, and a purpose to murder if those insults or blows were resented. You will perceive at once that such a purpose could not be carried out in the dark.

But the strangest argument I have yet heard in this, and I might say with safety in any other cause, is this: That because the act is proved to have been committed in the presence of forty witnesses, you are to disbelieve the statements of all those present, because forsooth it is improbable that the prisoner would do such a deed where he would be overwhelmed with the testimony of so many witnesses. In other words, the more testimony you have of a fact the less are you to believe.

If one witness swears to it, all right, you may believe; if two attest it, you must begin to doubt; if a dozen swear to it, of course it must be false. I have no comments to make upon a position so extraordinary. The Governor makes it matter of complaint, that while we have crucified Barlow, we have made no assault upon the distinguished array of gentlemen who have come here to testify to the prisoner's character. I can assure counsel that if there had been anything in the conduct of testimony of any one of those gentlemen that in my opinion called for animadversion, it would have afforded me infinite pleasure to have done them justice. But I must beg to be excused from violating my own feelings of right and propriety merely to gratify counsel on the other side, and give them an opportunity of defending their witnesses. I have assailed the motives of the defense in bringing those witnesses here. I have told you that though the ostensible object was to prove character-the real object was to overawe you with the majesty of great names. But for this, the witnesses themselves, can in no way be held responsible. When requested by Mr. Ward as an act of friendship to him, to come here and testify in behalf of his son, it was their duty as gentlemen to do so, without inquiry into the motives of the request. I hold these gentlemen not only blameless in this, but I am free to say that a refusal on their part to come, might in a certain event, have been matter of life-long regret to them. I desire to notice one authority quoted by Gov. Helm this morning; that Tennessee case in which it is asserted that the cowardice of the murderer is a justification of the crime. I will not stop to comment upon the consequences that would result to society from the recognition by courts, of a doctrine so monstrous. It is enough to show that it has no applicability to this case. Surely gentlemen, after having proved that their client is a "man of spirit" will not now take shelter behind that Tennessee case, and allege that he was a coward, and therefore justifiable. I have characterized this act itself as a most cowardly assassination; but I do not mean by that to charge that the prisoner is a coward: the proof is otherwise, and the very fact that he