After a few preparatory remarks, including his brief reference to Mr. Robb's speech, which he characterized as a "gauzy affair," Mr. Erwin plunged into his subject as follows: "Unhappily for you, and I think for the county, the propelling causes that led to the riots at Homestead are not shown in evidence. Under your oaths you cannot merely presume on them. I think that is unfortunate for the country, the state and the city. After the news of the battle flashed over the wires calm minds awaited the result of the investigation. That it has not been touched is a matter of sincere regret. You are now put in an iron vest by your oaths, and you can presume nothing except such presumptions as are legal and presumable. We of the defense are in no way responsible for this. A man has the right to rebut only the testimony addressed against him, and that is so strong that if you committed the murder you would not have a chance to prove I did it. And thus we are bound hand and foot, and our mouths are open to receive what the prosecution presents." Mr. Erwin defined indictments as mere accusations, and said that the law's presumption of innocence was as a shield on which the prosecution must pile evidence until the weight is so heavy that it breaks the prisoner down. The speaker referred to the important part that intuition plays in law cases, and said in that respect women often possessed it more acutely because they were nearer like the angels. Going further, he adverted to the exclusion of any evidence that there was a strike at Homestead or that Mr. Frick had hired an armed body there. The constitution, he said, still gives the people right to bear arms in their defense. "The cloven foot of the power that invoked this invasion of Pennsylvania has been hidden from you," continued he. "I know not whether accidentally, but it has been concealed. You know, though, that it was Frick, the blackest name there ever was; you know that Frick, whoever he may be, put on board the Little Bill arms and men for this invasion of Pennsylvania. "And, therefore, you are bound to presume that if the proceeding had a just excuse it should be shown, and the absence of it is favorable to the prisoner. What was there that even justified Frick in arming men like that? You do not know. I cannot but presume that it is so black he dare not show it in this open forum before the republic. The great question with you, gentlemen, is, under the evidence we have before us, was this battle at Homestead a riot or an authorized invasion? That's the first question. If you answer it was an invasion that's the end of it. It requires no proclamation of the governor to resist an invasion. I do not see how under the evidence you can see anything else than an invasion. I would like to have shown you what an irresponsible constabulary the Pinkertons are, but that is denied us."