Mr. Hays—Mr. Bryan, the distinguished leader of the prosecution.
The Court—Do you mean young Bryan?
Mr. Hays—Mr. W. J. Bryan.
The Court—He has not appeared as counsel, yet?
Mr. Hays—What?
The Court—When I say that, he is counsel, but I mean that he has not made any argument.
Mr. Hays—May I put it this way: That the prosecution gave us to understand before we came down here—
Mr. Darrow—Is his appearance entered?
Mr. Malone—Is Mr. W. J. Bryan's name entered in this court as counsel on that side?
The Court—I just stated that he appears as counsel, but he has made no argument and I thought the lawyer was referring to something he said. Of course something he said on the outside, you should not refer to. But any reference you make to young Mr. Bryan, who has made an argument is an entirely different thing.
Mr. William Jennings Bryan—Your honor, may we not, as well in the beginning, recognize that however much interested the attorneys for the defense are in making me this case, they ought to recognize the attorney-general is in charge of this case, and they ought to recognize this, about which they speak so honestly and knowingly, when it comes to this fact, that the attorney-general is in charge of the case, and I am associate counsel.
Gen. Stewart—As a matter of personal privilege, your honor, I will state that in law, the attorney-general has charge, but in the presence of such a distinguished person as Mr. Bryan, that lawyers bear him respect.
Mr. Hays—May I say this?
The Court—You may proceed.
Mr. Hays—On this point, on the admission of evidence, I should be justified in stating the opinion of anybody and your honor would accept it according to its legal worth.
I assume that if I state the opinion of one of the counsel for the prosecution I am stating the opinion of a lawyer which your honor will recognize for what it is worth.
Should Obey Golden Rule.
I am stating the opinion of a lawyer made when he was merely a lawyer and not an advocate. Of course, we men in New York, when we read the opinion of this distinguished lawyer to the effect that this was a duel to the death, to the effect that this case was a duel to the death without evidence, was evidence to be given? We relied then upon the opinion of that distinguished lawyer and we have spent thousands of dollars bringing witnesses here. And I have heard that men, even though charged with more religion than I am, ordinarily obey the golden rule and there is a proposition of ethics in that.
But, wholly aside from that, I assume that was his opinion as a lawyer when he was not an advocate.
Now, your honor, you have heard the opinion of the defense as lawyers. And finally I shall refer to the opinion as a lawyer of one who plays a far more important part in this case.
Your honor said, before this matter came up, that the only difference—this statement was made, and if the statement is incorrect, your honor will correct me. I am reading:
"The only difference between the attitude of Judge Raulston and those of either side is that he calls the case an investigation."
"A judge should begin all investigations with an open mind and should never hastily and rashly rush to conclusions.
"So long as there is any question of either law or fact in doubt he should diligently inquire for the truth."
I am quoting that and I think it is sound.
Certainly, if your honor determined this case is an investigation it was because your honor had in mind, it could mean nothing else, when speaking as a lawyer, that you would require evidence, on these facts.
