"Nothing except the testimony of Abe Hummel. I will
not speak of that unfortunate man in any harsher term than
the exigencies of this case require. But it is a melancholy
sight to see a man in the declining years of his life, when
soon the sun must set for him forever, and he will appear to
give that account of his life that we are all called upon to
give after death—I say it is a melancholy sight to see a man
whose pathway has been wreathed with dishonest acts,
crowning his acts with perjury—resorting to perjury in
order to deprive a fellow of his life.
"Gentlemen, is this censure deemed excessive? Listen. Mr. Hummel is not lacking in intelligence—certainly is not lacking in cunning.
"Let me recall to your mind the photograph of the alleged affidavit. You remember what weight the prosecution attached to it and of what importance they considered it. Let me call your attention to all the points in Hummel's testimony regarding this.
"Thaw's lawyer then tore Hummel's evidence to bits, showing that in one place he swore positively he sent for the photographer and in another he swore as positively that he did not. Continuing Delmas said:
"Which of these stories is true? They both come from the witness sitting in that chair. They both have the sanction of his oath—the oath of a man already convicted for subornation of perjury and conspiracy. Both of these stories cannot be true. Which one is true? One of these two stories is a deliberate falsehood, and which it is I care not. They probably are both false.
"Abe Hummell testifies that this thing, miscalled 'affidavit,' was dictated by him in the latter part of October, 1903, in his office, to a stenographer whose name he does not remember and even whose individuality he has forgotten.
"Listen: If Abe Hummel dictated this illegal affidavit,
