"Now the duty of the commonwealth is plain in this case. It must convince your minds and your consciences that the defendant is guilty. Who says this Pennsylvania boy killed Connors? Nobody. They want to say and want you to say a great riot was in progress. I deny it. A riot is some act done by several persons unlawful in its character. I deny that there was any riot on the shore that day; the state does not prove that the defendant had a gun in his hand that day. They do try to prove by one witness that he had a revolver in his hand. The doctor testified that the wound that killed Connors was a rifle bullet. Then how can they accuse the defendant of the crime? They first (the state) must prove to you that there was a riot there that day and that Clifford was there, participating in that riotous proceeding, either aiding or abetting. They offer us Pinkertons--Pinkertons to a Pennsylvania jury, gentlemen--who came into this state with guns, who are murderers of your citizens, making their children orphans. One of the attorneys for the prosecution, in his fervid manner, stigmatized that gathering of Homestead people as anarchy. I say that invasion of the Pinkertons was the highest evidence of anarchy. You saw these little Carnegie clerks come here and testify that they had gone behind these barricades spying around, while bullets, as they say, were flying fast and furious. That is simply absurd. It would have been the highest act of bravery. It might be so, but it is not reasonable and I would stigmatize it as a lie. It is a tenet of the law that it is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. Will you believe the sheriff who would try to pull the wool over your eyes and endeavor to launch this defendant into eternity? Will you believe the testimony of the defendant or this red-handed Pinkerton? No, this is not a question between labor and capital, and it amused me to have the learned counsel on the other side assert it. It is claimed by the prosecution that Clifford was at the landing firing at these men when they landed; that there was a cessation for four hours after. I deny this, for witness after witness for the prosecution went upon the stand and swore to the contrary. What is the purpose of this move by the prosecution? It is simply a trick; a pure trick of the law to show that there was a cessation of firing which would permit the people of Homestead to withdraw. There was no cessation, but these Pinks poured out a continuous fire upon these defenseless people on the hillside from port-holes cut in the barges. Self-defense is a cardinal principle not depending upon the law of the state, but upon God. It does not depend upon man. Oh! how weak is that attempt of man to try to prove wrong that which God has