The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-03-04
A Protest for the Consideration of
Governor Lowry

EDITOR CLAEfox. \ few weeks ago
the Supreme Court of our State affirmed
the judgment of the Circuit Court oil
! the Second District OF Pamela COUNTY
IN the case Of The statevs Alfred Fields
who WAS twice convicted 0f the crime 81
/ attempting to bride the Circuit Clerk OF
this county, and sentenced to two year.
4 imprisonment in the peniteuiiary. Both
/ the Clreait Clerk and Alfred Fields are
/ c0lpTed men the latter has been a mem
| Der Of the Legislature from this county.
/ having been elected Oh the Greenback
I ticket some years ago.
/ This case Is now exciting considerable
/ interest among a certain class Of the cit
/ liens OF the county, who will soon pre-
sent petitions to his Excellency, Gov.
/ Lowry, asking for the parloa of Fields.
4 While We do not object To the Cover
/ nors use of his power to pardon, vet it is
not fair that the petition should cast
aspersions upon the character of others,
or charge them with criminal offences.
unless they have been ed and convicted
/ for such offences. Now, the petitioners
after stating the charge upon which
! Fields was twice convicted by carefully
selected, sworn jurors, say that. There
Z III
conflicting statements about the natter
This very careless misrepresentation Of
/ facts should not pass unnoticed because
1t does an injustice to Mr.. Young. the
principal witness for the State. The
writer was present at boti4 trials, listen
I ed carefully to the evidence, and knows
what has since become a matter Of
general remark-that the testimony Of
.srfs- - E.
identical at both trials. And although
Fields was represented by as able coun-
sci as the State affords, who made many
subtle efforts to entrap Mr.. Young vet.
upon that evidence, at the first trial,
and he repetition Of that evidence. COT
roborated by the evidence of pIomi-
nent lawyer, at the last, Fields was con
victed.
The petition states futher that,
"Fields denied the statement of the
only witness against hun" The truth
of the matter is, tn Fields was never
put upon the witness stand in his own
defense; nor has he ever denied the
truthfulness of Young's statement; but
on the contrary, when speaking of his
conviction, he has exultingly and re
peatedly stated that he would die before
he would betray his friends.
The petition further asserts that, a
celebrated trial for murder was pend NO
at the time, and it was charged that the
names IN the iury-b1x were to be chang
ed in the interest of those accused of
murder, and the great excitement
against the principal who was accused
Of murder, and who escaped through
premature discharge of the jury by the
Judge on the first trial, extended itself
to the defendant Fields, and produced
undue prejudice against him. The
writer does not believe that this "trial
for murder" produced undue prejudice"
against Fields but that the above
statement of facts does clearly show the
enormity of Fields crime and that it as
clearly shows the difference in the char
acter Of Fields and Young-the former
attempting to poison the very fountain
of justice, the jury system; and the
latter not only refusing to be bribed,
but very properly giving testimony
against him.
Another noticeable feature of this
case is, that after Fields conviction in
the lower court last November, applica-
tiol was make to Judge Roane, in open
cour, to allow him bail, pending his
appeal to the Supreme Court. This
appeal was denied. And still Fields was
never imprisoned in the county Jail.
And now, five weeks after the affirma-
ton of his sentence to the penitentiary.
by the Supreme Court, he is still running
at large in this county soliciting persons
to sign his petition for pardon.
OBSERVER.
Sar1io Mics EFah 32th 1919