The herald., 1894-12-07
THE A. R. U. CONSPIRACY CASE.
Members of the Local A. r. u.
Receive Their Sentence.
The OratOrical Efforts of Counsel
Fail to Move the Court.
The Defendant johnson May BE Par
doneo, But stsnwood, CIuue and
Ross Must Serve Their
Time in Jail.

with railroad men and others anxious 10
witness the fall OF the legal curtain on
the last scene in the great railroad con-
spiracy case.
Philip Stanwood, president of the local
A. R. u, W. H. Clune. secretary of the
same organization, Isaac Ross and A. T.
Johnson, the four forming the board OF
mediation Of the A. r. o., were brought
before Judge Ross for sentence.
Some little delay was occasioned in
bringing johnson into court. United
States Attorney Denis explained to the
court that DR.. Wing had informed him
that johnson was very seriously i'll, but
q carriage had been sent for him, and as
he had received letter from johnson
himself, wherein he said he did not wish
to be made party to any appeal, but
would take bis sentence at once, he was
anxious he should be present. When
johnson appeared he seemed to be in
pain and took his seat with the other
defendants.
Counsel for the defendants then pro-
ceeded with arguments on motion in
arrest OF judgment and q motion for a
new trial, on the ground that the YER
dict was contrary to the evidence and
the law, and also that Judge Ross, in
charging the jury, erred and misdirected
the Jury on points OF law.
| George W. Holton based his argument
mainly ON q recent decision OF Justice
Harlan, who, when sitting iu the court
| Of appeals, defined with great preciseness
what constitutes . conspiracy. Accord
| ing to his ruling, either threats, force.
persecution or intimidation are neces-
cary to prove conspiracy, and in the case
at bar, counsel maintained, all these
elements OF essentially were conspicu-
ous by their absence.
w. T. Williams followed on the point
OF this direction to the jury by the court
in its charge. While conceding that
federal judge had power to express his
opinion on the evidence to the jury, and
in this being distinguished from the
state courts. counsel contended that the
jury in the present case were substan-
italy told that there was no evidence for
the defendants, and to that he took ex-
ceptions. He maintained that defend
ants have right to avail themselves OF
all evidence, aud ii that furnished by
the people can be interpreted ior their
benefit. then it is their right that the
presumption OF their innocence receive
such support. This, Mr.. Williams
claimed, ia a ruling OF law, and yet
has emphaticslly stated that mo evil
dence was given by the defendants"
Again. when the jury failed to agree and
further instructions were given. the
court advised the jury that ''as reason
able and sensible men they must make
the evidence the basis Of their verdict" I"
and this after having impressed on the
jury that no evidence had been given
by the defendants, Mr.. Williams pro-
ceeded to argue that while there might
be no conflict In the evidence for the
government the criminal intent, II there
was any, was fit subject for the jury.
| On this point the court could not in
/, struct, for whether the defendants acted
with guilty intent was the fundamental
proposition, and was for the jury alone
to consider
Before taking q recess until 80 the
court, in passing sentence on the defend
ant Johnson, stated that he did not
wish to disgrace him by sonding him to
the state prison; he appreciated the fact
that be had acted during time OF great
excitement. Taking this into consider
alton he ordered that defendant pay 81
| fine and be imprisoned iI the county
Jail for IS months.
Gen. Johnstone Jones, upon the re-
convening of court in the afternoon, be-
gan his Argument by claiming that un-
der the law three things we're necessary
in order to prove the defendants guilty:
First. that they had combined together
in Q confederation to do an unlawful
act; that would be conspiracy. Second,
in furtherance of the conspiracy, the
committing OF the overt act in obstruct-
| ing the United States mail; and third,
that the jury had not only to find that
] defendants had retarded the mails, but
that they did 30 with the intent as al
legged in the indictment. Counsel pro-
| claimed that not o scintilla OF evidence
was adduced which indicated that the
defendants conspired or did anything
unlawful. He claimed that che statute
has no reference to acts, lawful in them
selves. by which temporary stoppsge Of
the mails may have resulted. Every
fact sustained by the evidence of the
people nigh be conceded and still the
defendants stand innocent before the
law OF wrongdoing. The resolution of
the local A. r. IT,, counsel contended,
! showed conclusively the purpose of de.
fendants, and the verdict was contrary
to the evidence and also the law az laid
down by the court.
At the conclusion OF the argument
the court stated that he was satisfied no
error OF law had been made. and that
the verdict had boen returned on the
evidence. which was amply sufficient,
| AID, therefore. the motion in arrest of
judgment had been overruled snd
motion for new trial denied. The
court was about to pass sentence when
Mr.. -Williams asked the indulgence OF
the court while he spoke in mitigation
OF sentence.
He first pointed out that the defend
ants were ali men of family and poor.
The railroad strike that had set the
whole world wondering had in its es-
sence nothing criminal, it was in reality
revolution and rose almost to the dig
nifty OF the attempt to overthrow the
government itself. II it had done so it
would not, urged counsel, have been
the first time in this country's history.
Morally the defendants were NO euiltier
than millions OF other men throughout
the United States, who directly or indi-
rectly had acted with them.
The court, upon Mr.. Williams con-
cluding his address, stated that while
he personally sympsthised with the de.
PENDANTS. and particularly their families.
ne had duty to perform and he would
mot shrink from it thon or ever EvaYv.