The Galveston Daily News (Galveston,
Texas)
26 May 1869, Wed
The Military Prisoners.--A Military Commission is now in session
at Jefferson, Texas, engaged in the trial of some thirty-five of
the citizens of that place, charged with the murder of the
notorious G.W. Smith, one of the worst outlaws that ever infested
and injured a community. We had hoped that Gen. Reynolds would
see the impropriety of this course in the matter, but he
evidently labors under the influence of very great prejudice and
misconception concerning it. He has just published a reply to a
circular of Mr. R.W. Loughery, editor of the Jefferson Times and
Marshall Republican, setting forth the injustice of his course.
This circular was sent to the President, and by him transmitted
through the War Department, etc., to Gen. Reynolds for report. In
his reply Gen. Reynolds gives his own version of the killing of
Smith, and refuses to turn the prisoners over to the civil courts,
giving for this refusal two of the worst and most mistaken
reasons that were ever given for any act of oppression, first,
that he believes the civil courts would not do justice in the
case, and second, that "the offence" as he calls it,
"against the United States, is not within the jurisdiction
of a State Court."
______________________________________________________________________________________
The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas)
29 May 1869, Sat
From our Evening Edition of Yesterday.
The Jefferson Prisoners--Charges and Specifications Against Them.
We give below and abstract of the charges and specifications
preferred against a number of the citizens of Jefferson, Texas.
Charge First--Conspiracy To oppose the authority of the United
States and to prevent the execution of the act of Congress to
provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,
passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto commonly
called the Reconstruction Laws; and feloniously and of malice
aforethought to kill and murder citizens, and feloniously and
forcibly to resist the United States military, engaged inthe
exectuion of said laws.
Specification--In this,
that heretofore, to-wit: on or about the 4th day of October, 1868,
at Jefferson, Marion county, in the State of Texas, then and now
embraced within the limits of the Fifth Military District, as
constituted under the act of Congress to provide for the more
efficient government of the rebel States, passed March 2, 1867--Ludwig
P. Alford, Richard P. Crump, William H. Magill, Mark H. Joplin,
Silas H. Nance, Charles L Pitcher, John C. Murphy, Jr.; Henry A.
Stanley, Walter L. Marshall, John M. Vines, William A. Hightower,
David E. Carpenter, Richard Batte, William D. Hannagan, George
Gray, Oscar Gray, Henry M. Woodsmall, Nathaniel McDoy, freedman;
Richard Davis, freedman; Marion T. Slaughter, Wm. B. Saufley, Wm.
Smith, Harrison Thurman, A.A. Spence, George O'Neil, James Alley,
Charles Hotchkiss, John Brim, William Alley, William Rose, James
Knox, Jacob Bates, David Castlebury, Richard Sedberry, Jacob Geer,
John Hopperty, William Ochiltree, "Bud" Connor, "Clem"
Galloway, Stephen Sullivan, William Nichols, "The"
Nichols, James Cotton, Theodore Lewis, John Lewis, "Bob"
Jones, John Brooks, freedman; Haggerty, Witherspoon, Cotton,
Thomas, Gorman, Monan, Campbell, John Penman, Pink Barnes,
Kirkland, Pratt, Theodore Scott, John Muse, William L. Crawford,
John Chambers, Wallace Dobbins, John Brightwell, McCarthy, and
other persons whose names are as yet unknown, did conspire and
combine together to oppose the authority of the Government of the
United States, and to prevent the execution of the act of
Congress entitled: "An act to provide for the more efficient
government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867, and
the acts of Congress supplementary thereto, commonly called the
reconstruction laws; and to feloniously and of malice
aforethought, kill and murder citizens in revenge for the
expression of their opinions, favorable to the policy of those
laws; and did then and there further conspire to feloniously and
focibly resist the military of the United States, engaged in the
execution of said laws, and in furtherance of the conspiracy
aforesaid, the said parties did associate and organize themselves
into a secret society or order under the name of "The
Knights of the Risisng Sun;" and in further execution of
said conspiracy and the design, and by means of said organization,
did then and there assemble together, armed with guns and pistols,
loaded with powder and ball; and being so assembled, did then and
there assault, seize, overpower and disarm a military guard of
the United States, which guard was then and there engaged in the
protection of George W. Smith, Richard Stewart, freedmen; Lewis
Grant freedman; Anderson Wright, freedman, and Cornelius Turner,
freedman, who were then and there confined at the city jail in
said Jefferson; and said Crump, Alford et als., did then and
there seize and assault, with intent to kill and murder, the said
Smith, Stewart, Grant, Wright and Turner, and did then and there
feloniously and of malice aforethought, kill and murder said
Smith, Stewart and Grant, by shooting them with guns and pistols,
loaded with powder, shot and ball, etc; and then and there
proceeded, being armed with guns and pistols, loaded with
gunpowder, balls and shot to the neighborhood of the plantation
and residence of -- Caldwell, Judge of the Supreme Court of the
State of Texas, which plantation is about two miles from said
Jefferson, with intent feloniously and malice aforesaid, to seize,
kill and murder him, the said Caldwell.
Charge Second; Murder--Specification 1st-- Charges that the
parties indicated did, on or about the 4th day of October, 1868,
at Jefferson, Marion county, in the State of Texas, then and now
embraced within the limits of the Fifth Military District, as
constituted under the act of Congress to provide for the more
efficient government of the rebel States, passed March 2nd, 1867,
in and upon the body of George W. Smith, feloniously and wilfully,
and of their malice aforethought, make an assault, and with guns
and pistols, loaded with powder, ball and shot, did then and
there mortally shoot and wound him, the said Smith, of which
shooting and wounding the said Smith did then and there instantly
die.
Specification 2d--Charges that the parties in question did in
like manner feloniously kill and murder Louis Grant; and
specification 3d makes a similar charge against them for the
killing of Richard Stewart, freedman, at the same time and place.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas)
19 June 1869, Sat
Military Trials--Gen. Reynolds. Mr. R.W. Loughery, of the
Marshall Republican, replies at lenght to the reply of Gen.
Reynolds to an "Address to the Press and People of the
Country," issued by Mr. Loughery in February last, directing
public attention to the extraordinary and alarming condition of
affairs in Jefferson, Texas. This address was sent by the author
to the President, and by the latter to Gen. Reynolds "for
report," and he returned it with a defence of his course, to
which Mr. Loughery now replies. He thingks the defence of Gen.
Reynolds "evinces a respect for the enlightened judgement of
the country which few, if any, in Texas were prepared to expect,"
and seems to lean to the opinion that the General, in ordering
military commissions, etc., may have been imposed on by designing
men, but, whether he has or not, says Mr. L.:
I speak confidently when I assert that the tyranny and injustice
which have marked his administration in Texas have scarcely a
parallel in the Southern States, as grossly and cruelly as they
have been at times misgoverned.
After exhibiting strong
proofs of the incendiarism of Smith, the killing of whom is the
excuse for the military commission, Mr. Loughery takes up the
assertions of Gen. Reynolds that the citizens now on military
trial could not be fairly tried by the civil courts and were not
entitled to bail. How, it is asked, does Gen. Reynolds know that
they were not entitled to bail, without a full and fair
preliminary examination? and then we have the following which it
seems to us is a very damaging presentation so far as Gen.
Reynolds' side of the case is concerned;
But let us take Gen. Reynolds upon his own record. A mob of
United States soldiers broke open the jail at Tyler, and wantonly,
cruelly, and without the slightest excuse, murdered a citizen
confined in the jail. Was any military commission ordered in this
case? Were the parties ever brought to trial or punishment?
Bickerstaff, a notorious outlaw, was recently killed by a mob in
Northern Texas. He happened to be as obnoxious to the military authorities
as he was to the citizens. Consequently his death created no
sensation. His conduct in many respects was like that of Smith,
and he uttered precisely the same threats, and used almost the
identical language. But he was not a radical. He did not sojourn
in a county where the negroes, as in Marion, outnumbered the
whites two to one, and among all his villainy, did not threaten
them with a negro war. Since the occupancy of Jefferson, Mr.
William Perry, an old and respected citizen, was murdered in cold
blood by the United States troops, under order of a detective, a
man of infamous character and antecedents. What was done about
that? Was the murderer placed in the stockade and held to answer
for the deed? On the contrary, he was turned over to the civil
authorities, had a sham trial before a timid or corrupt judge, an
apointee of Gen. Reynolds, and turned loose.
An old and respectable
citizen of Hopkins county was shot down by United States soldiers
at Sulphur Springs, some time last year. Was there an
investigation in that case? Did anybody hear of a trial, or that
it excited the slightest interest at Gen. Reynolds' headquarters?
Take the case of Mrs. Bonfoey, who was brutally murdered in
Marshall about fifteen months ago. She was supposed, after the
arrest of her husband, to have a large amount of money belonging
to the United States Government, and for which she was doubtless
murdered. Public suspicion, founded upon well authenticated facts,
pointed to United States soldiers as the guilty parties. Not only
was there no military commission in this case, but the very man
most suspect was sent away. Such was the terror of the military
that men were afraid to speak what they thought, and the civil
officer who did take some slight action in it, was afraid
afterward of his life.
Hundreds of men, in various portions of the State, have been
arrested by the military authorities, treated with indignity,
fined and imnprisoned upon the testimony of worthless and
depraved white men and negroes, and the money thus unjustly taken
from the citizens pocketed by officials. Were these acts ever
invistigated, or a dollar so unjustly taken restored? But they
not only treated the people with despotic tyranny, seemingly for
the purpose of driving them to desperation, but they sent
broadcast over the country false reports of the condition of
society in Texas and the temper of its people.
____________________________________________________________________
The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas)
24 June 1869, Thu
A Military Prisoner.--The wife of Mr. C.L. Pitcher, of Jefferson,
writes a strong appeal in behalf of her husband, who is now in
military confinement at Jefferson, Texas. She says that on the 9th
of February last, she discharged two negro servants for
inefficiency. On the evening of the same day Mr. Pitcher was
arrested and confined in the stockade. No charge was made against
him, nor any information given him concerning the grounds of his
arrest. Having been in confinement some months, he wrote some
letters of complaint. On the 30th ult., on his return from the
place where he was undergoing trial, he was put "into a cell
six feet by eight, with walls three plank deep and almost air-tight,"
and kept there twelve hours, when the surgeon gave his opinion
that the prisoner could not survive if kept in the cell much
longer. Some apertures were then made in the cell but the
prisoner was not removed from it. He is kept in solitary
confinement, and, though in delicate health, is not allowed any
food except the rations of the common soldier; is not permitted
to have any reading matter whatever, nor to take any exercise,
nor to have a light in his cell at night. Mrs. Pitcher continues:
All this is to satisfy the private malice of Gen. Buell. I am not
allowed to send him any thing at all, except articles ordered by
the Doctor. A minister of the place, one highly respected and
beloved by every one, requested Gen. Buell, personally, to be
allowed to send Mr. Pitcher a bible, which he most positively
refused, saying that he could not have that or anything else,
that any of the other prisoners might have it but not him. Will
the United States Government, which has the character of being
humane, magnaminous and just, allow such petty acts of tyranny?
* * * * * * *
Mr. Pitcher's health is failing rapidly. His looks plainly show
that if this same course is continued much longer, he will fall a
martyr, and an innocent one, to the tyranny of this commander.
My husband has been guilty of no wrong; he has been ready at any
and all times to meet any fair investigation of his conduct. If
he had any fears whatever, abundant opportunities were afforded
him of going away. But he chose to remain long after the first
arrests were made. And now having ruined him pecuniarily, and
left his family defenseless, knowing that they can bring no
charge against him which he cannot fairly meet, an attempt is
being made to destroy his life by slow torture. My mental
sufferings are scarcely less than his, and in the name of
humanity and justice I ask if there is no redress or alleviation
of this great wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas)
24 June 1869, Thu
Jefferson Matters.
Editors News.
Under this caption Flake's Bulletin, of the 29th ult., contains
an editorial to which I ask the privilege, through your columns,
of a brief reply.
The article which I allude is of an inflammatory character,
calculated and designed to excite prejudice against a body of
defenceless men, and to uphold a condition of things, and a
series of enormities, which all men, who have a reverence for
constitutional law and justice, must deplore.
The occasion for this display of zeal is an address to "the press of the country," which I issued in February last, to which Gen. J.J. Reynolds replied. The editor assumes, that I presented in that address "the vies of th ematter which the friends of the Jefferson prisoners entertain," so clearly that it left nothing to say, and that Gen. Reynolds in his answer to the charges I presented, had given so overwhenming an ezpression of the propriety and justice of his course, as to satisfy all men, at home and abroad, that complaing in regard to it was ill advised, unreasonable, unfounded, and calculate to inflict injury upon the prisoners and the community in which these transactions have occurred.
My reply to Gen. Reynolds
is before the country, and although not as full as I could have
made it, is sufficiently so to show its indefensible character,
and the unfairness of the remarks of the Bulletin.
What I complain of in that journal is, that the editor well knew
that the address of mine on which he saw fit to comment, did not
contain, and was not designed to set forth, circumstantially, the
grounds of complaing against the military authorities in the
course pursued at Jefferson. Previous numbers of the Texas
Republican, every issue of which I have reason to believe he
received, as that paper has been sent to him regularly in
exchange, had given fully the facts upon which the address was
predicated.
It was apparent to every editor to whom it was sent that the sole design of it was to direct attention to these facts and to invite comment upon them. The editor of the Bulletin, therefore, must have been wanting, either in common sense or common honesty, or have been remarkabley obtuse, to have found in that brief address the elaboration and clearness which he claims that it contained. And, in this connection, I might well ask him why it is, if he makes any pretensions to candor and fairness, that none of the details of this Jefferson affair, presenting it as it rteally exists, have ever found a place in his columns and that it was only when a partial statement was made, that could be ingeniously turned to my disadvantage, to the detriment of that community and to the injury of the unhappy prisoners, that he seized hold of it with avidity?
Let us look at this question, disrobed of the sophistry which the Bulletin endeavors to throw around it, and as it really exists. Geo. W. Smith and two negroes were killed in October, while in the custody of the civil authorities, at Jefferson, Texas. That it was a "military crime," that the "powers of the Federal Government were defied," and that it constituted "an insult to the authority of the United States, as the Bulletin assumes, in order to excite prejudice against the entire community of Jefferson, where the tragedy occurred, non of the facts sustain. Major Curits, and every officer who has testified in the case, state that the prisoners were in the custody of the civil authorities, and that the mob disclaimed any intention to injure him or any of his command. Still more incorrect is the charge that I have attempted to justify this act or to shield its perpetrators from punishment. The real questions involved are these; Does the act of this mob, however unauthorized and wicked it may have been warrant the military commander of this district in setting aside the civil authority, and instituting an inquisition and a despotism that has no parallel, even in governments making no pretensions to freedom? Were not the men, whoever they may have been, that were suspicioned or charged with being concerned in this mob, entitled to a hearing and a fair and impartial trial?
What are the facts? The
civil courts were in successful operation. The District Judge and
all the civil officers of the county were military appointees,
men of acknowledged radical loyalty, and removable at the
pleasure of the military commander. Jefferson is a commercial
place. A very large proportion of the white population are from
the North. The elections that have been held in the county
exhibit the fact that what is denominated the "loyal element"
is in the ascendency. It may well be asked, under these
circumstances, what excuse could there be alleged in favor of the
course pursued by Gen. Reynolds? And what was that course? Did
Gen. Reynolds wait for a session of the District Court, and for
the action of the grand jury? On the contrary, he first sent to
Jefferson a military mayor, a man who was justly obnoxious to the
people of this whole country, on account of the tyranny he
displayed while in charge of the Freedman's Bureau at Marshall,
and for having procured the arrest and imprisonment for weeks of
several respectable citizens of Marshall, on a statement made on
honor, which when a fair investigation was obtained, he
himself denied when placed on oath. He sent a detective to
Jefferson, a man of infamous character and antecedents, who
employed all the agencies that low cunning, unauthorized
inquisition and corruption could devise to work up the case. It
has been charged and not denied that the lowest and most
abandoned characters of the place were employed as detectives and
spies, and that intimidation, threats, coaxing, and offers of
bribery were freely used by this representative of Holt and
Conover. Not only these enormities were practiced, but one of the
most worthy citizens of the place was brutally murdered under his
orders by a squad of United States soldiers. Arbitrary arrests,
based upon such testimony or no testimony at all were commenced
under his orders, and continued until the day of trial. What
right has the Bulletiin or any one else to assume that the men,
all or any of them, were guilty? The Constitution of the United
States guarantees to every citizen a speedy and impartial trial
before a jury of the country. It allows them to confer with and
to be heard by counsel, to prepare their testimony, to be advised
of the charge they will be required to meet, and to a fair
preliminary examination. So far from this being the case, these
men were arrested withoug warrant, without being informed of the
charge or charges against them, denied access to counsel, except
in the presence of a guard, and were thus cut off from every
opportunity of defense. They were denied bail, refused the writ
of habeas corpus, and with teir busiiness ruined, their families
cst down in gloom, and complaint silenced by punishment, they
were compelled to await as patiently as they could, the pleasure
of those who had them in charge.
If this is not despotism of the most odious and revolting
character, what is it? If there is any trial in Austria or
Prussia, in modern times, that excels it in refined cruelty, I
would like for the editor of the Bulletin, to point to the
instance? Will the editor of that paper pretend to say, that
these unfortunate men can have or likely to have, a fair trial.
Yet he is the defender of all this wrong and outrage upon our
free institutions, and upon the rights of American citizens,
while I stand out in opposition to them. If this be treason, and
an acknowledgement that I am a traitor, as alleged by the Austin
Republican, I am willing to stand the charge, and appeal for my
vindication, to the enlightened, virtous sentiment of the country.
The Supreme Court of the United States decided during the war, in
the Millegan case, against the legality of arbitrary arrests and
trials by military commissions. In the recent Texas bond case,
the same court decided that Texas was a State in the Union. If so,
the Constitution clearly states "that the citizens of each
State shall have the same rights, immunities, and priveleges of
the citizens of the several States," which at once forbids
all such summary proceedings, tyranny, and reign of terror as
introduced and practiced at Jefferson.
But if the Jefferson prisoners were to be tired by a military
court, they were at least entitled to as fair a hearing as could
be expected by such a tribunal. Has that been the case? The
bearing of two of the commission through the trial, so far as it
has progressed, is represented to have given unmistakable
evidence of deep-seated prejudice against the prisoners. The
character, bias, and feelings of one of these men was strongly
presented by Judge Evans in a speech in the convention on the 6th
of January last. If the commander of this district intended to
give these men a fair trial, why did he place such a man on the
commission? Judge Evans, after showing the conduct of bureau
agents, and to what extent they had outraged private rights, and,
by their tyranny, had produced the disorganization,
demoralization, and crime throught the State, which was the
source of so much complaint, for which the great body of the
citizens were not responsible, but which, for unworthy political
purposes, was being wielded against them, with such terrible
effect, said:
Bickstaff became an outlaw by the oppression of Brevet Lieut. Col.
Sarr, agent of the Freedmen's Bureau at Mt. Pleasant, Titus
county. This officer, unfortunately for the interest of Union men,
belonged to that class who came here filled with hatred and
prejudice against the whole white population, and his first
effort was to incite the whole black population against the
whites as their oppressors, and that he was there to redress and
punish their injuries. Of course, he was soon gratified by
numerous complaintsof colored against white poeple of that county,
both men and women. Such was the order of his mind that he would
give more consideration to the statement of the most worthless
and corrupt colored man or woman than to the testimony of the
most credible white witness in that community. He would allow no
weight to testimony of the more respectable colored people who
would testify in favor of a white man against a colored one, and
there was therefore no way of checking his arbitrary proceeding.
I will cite one instance in point--the case of Mr. Wm. Hart, one
of the most respectable and worthy citizens to be found in any
country. Upon complaint of a worthless white man, who professed
to be acting in the interest of the colored people, this man
Starr compelled Hart to pay a thousand dollars, aginst the most
positive testimony of the colored people themselves!
As an evidence of the moral character of this agent, he undertook
to enforce marriage between the races by compulsory means; as an
example-- upon the complaint of a colored woman, not of the most
exalted reputation, that a white man of property had made a
promise of marriage, he sent a file of soldiers to bring him
forth, and have the promise executed. The man left the country,
and Starr immediately sold his property and turned over the
proceeds to the colored woman. This and like arbitrary acts are
attested by the most respectable Union men in Titus county, and
well known to the whole community. In fact, it is notorious that
the counties in which disturbacnes have taken place in Texas are
precisely those in which bureau agents were stationed. And where
there have been no agents no difficulty whatever has occurred
between the white and colored people. The damage done to the
interests of the colored people by this one bureau agent is
incalculable, and in many instances irreparable. And it was the
natural result, that the parties, white and colored, who had
aided Starr in his oppression, would be found assassinated.
Bickerstaff and his band no doubt killed some of these parties,
and drove others from the counrty; but that he was countenanced
or encouraged by any considerable number in that community is as
untrue in his case as in that of Baker.
Gen. Reynolds concludes that these bands were "countenances
or not discouraged," because he could find no respectable
citizen in those communities willing to aid the military in their
arrest.
Has he so little knowledge, so little sympathy with the brighter
and nobler side of our nature! Does he not know that the American
people have an instinctive dread of trial and execution by
military courts-- a prejudice, I may say, to the everlasting
credit of the Anglo American race. And I trust the time will
never come, when any portion of the people South or North will
have so degenerated as to welcome this form of tyranny, against
which the founders of our republic sought to guard.
While the people of Texas remain subjected to a military
government of which they form no part, they cheerfully acquiesce
in its authority over them; at the same time there is not
intelligent or virtuous citizen who will williingly join in the
pursuit of any one, to be tried and punished by martial law, no
matter who, or what may be the crime.
And yet, in the face of these facts, which have never been denied
or palliated, this man has been placed on the commisssion to try
these truly unfortunate prisoners, many of whom I am satisfied
are gentlemen of the highest character, who had no connection
with the transactions with which they are charged.
What defense can the Bulletin or any other radical journal offer
in the defense of these charges, and in opposition to these plain
exposition of facts? It desires to be considered a fair paper,
that "nothing extenuates nor sets down aught in malice."
How does its practice comport with its professions? Will it have
the candor, even at this late hour, to do justice to an injured
and oppressed communmity, and to sustain the civil institutions
of the country? Will it countenance the advocate of despotism,
corruption, and tyranny, or will it make an effort in defense of
constitutional public liberty?
That Smith ought not to have been killed, and particularly in the
manner that he was, no one will deny. I would be as far from
countenancing such acts as the Bulletin or any other citizen or
journalist. But I know enough of human nature to assert that such
a man would have been killed or driven out of any community. Take
the most quiet, orderly, law abiding village in New England, and
let a desperado go there, and organize the worst element of the
community against its peace and security, the town destroyed by
fire, and suspicion attach to him as the instigator of it; then
organize a mob and shoot two of the citizens, and upon being
arrested threaten to burn the town again, and I am under the
impression no one would answer for his safety. The condition of
affairs in Jefferson was far worse than this, for there the negro
element exceeds the white over two to one, and during an entire
winter, repeatedly the citizens had to stand guard over thier
property and families, in constant dread of a war of races,
instigated by this dangerous man.
I have shown that there have been a large number of other cases
where the civil law has been outraged, where there was no
opportunity for political capital, that were passed over in
silence. I referred, among others, to the case of Mrs. Bonfoey,
who was brutally murdered in Marshall, as was believed by United
States soldiers. In that case, a citizen told Lieut. Hawley, then
in command at this place, that if he were sure of protection, he
could trace the murderers. Upon being informed that it was
suspicioned they were in his camp, Lieut. Hawley promptly told
the citizen that if he repeated the remark he would arrest him
and place him in confinement.
I hope you will pardon the length of this communication. Justice
to myself and to the people of this section, as I conceived,
demanded it. I trust you will not only publish it, but continue
your aid in defense of our civil institutions. And if, as you
seem to believe, Gen. Reynolds is anxious to restore the civil
government of the State, let him prove his faith by his works. As
long as he continues to use corrupt agents, arrest citizens
without warrant, and employ stockades as exhibitions of his power,
I shall regard him as no real friend of the country, or intending
to carry out, in their letter and spirit, the reconstruction laws.
R.W. Loughery.
________________________________________________________________________________
The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas)
17 Aug 1869, Tue
The Jefferson Trial.-- A correspondent of the New Orleans Times,
writing from Jefferson, Texas, in relation to the military trial
in progress there says:
A great amount of testimony has been elicited, tending, so far,
favorabley to the prisoners. The prosecution is founded mainly
upon the testimony of Anderson Wright, a negro, who was taken out
of the jail with Smith and the others, but who managed to escape,
and that of Dr. Frith, who was one of the prisoners, but who
turned "State's evidence." Some very racy statements
were elicited a day or two ago by the defense, from a negro named
William Smith, who had been intended to be one of the witnesses
for the prosecution. He said he was threatened with hanging if he
did not swear as he was desired, and thereupon made affidavit to
the effect that he was at the jail on the night of the killing,
and identified various parties. But on being brought into court
he stated that he was at home all the eveneing and substantiated
the fact by the testimony of persons who were with him at his
house, half a mile from town, while the shooting was going on.
The defense has been ably conducted by some of the leading
lawyers of this section, and will undoubtedly prove successful, s
those parties most implicated by the witnesses for th
eprosecution have been proved by the most conclusive evidence to
have been elsewhere when the deed was done. The officers
composing the commission seem disposed to do justice to the
prisoner, the general impression being that a verdict will be
rendered strictly in accordance with the testimony elicited.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Sunday, February 04, 2018 County Coordinator: Angela Hartman State
Coordinator: Shirley Cullum |