The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-11


time after we got to the jury room.
We had no disagrf lnent whatever,
every Juror readily asserting to the
verdict as we handed 1t in"
Sheriff Martin received the verdict
very calmly. II never expected any
other verdict" he said. II know that
l did my duty as an officer of the law,
fairly and honestly. I am pleased that
these twelve good men think likewise
and 1 am of opinion that their decision
will be approved by every law abiding
citizen"
Sheriff Martins attorney, George S.
Ferris, under whose advice, he acted
from the inception of the strike down
to the day of the trial, said:
1.-THE verdict is satisfactory and vim
y dicates the sheriff's action. l don't
know If there will be another trial, but
] don't see how another trial could
have different ending, as all the evil
dence connected with the case had been
given and the case fairly tried"
Attorney John T. Lenahan, one of
the leading attorneys for the defense,
said: 1.-The law has simply been upheld
by the vindication of Sheriff Martin
and his deputies. There are three rea-
sons why the deputies had the right to
fire: First, because the strikers were
and refused to disperse at the sheriff's
command; second because they as
sauted the sheriff, and that alone gave
the posse the right to fire; third, be-
cause they rushed on the deputies
WE'RE BREAKING THE LAWS.
To the question of whether the Aus
trian government would be likely to
put in a claim against the United
States government, Mr.. Lenahan said
that he thought that after the govern
ment had read the evidence it would
take no action. IF there were any
Austrian subjects killed it was because
they were breaking the laws of this
country. He also said that he thought
the court made one mistake in not
charging the jury to bring in a verdict
of acquittal.
Hon. H. w. Palmer another of the
attorneys for the defense, stated that
in his opinion the verdict rendered was
the only one which could have been
brought in view of the evidence. The
= old law, which has been in existence
for over 500 years, is simply upheld by
the verdict These men were march
ing to Lattimer and acknowledged that
| they were going to make the men in
! that village stop work, and they ex-
Adoo and several other places, and as
this was unlawful, and as they refused
to disperse at the command of the
sheriff, they remained at their own
peril, and the sheriff had the right to
use force in order to enforce his COM
mand.
Therefore he was Justified and the
jury did the only thing 1t could do
vindicate him and his deputies. Mr.
Palmer also said that If there were
any Austrian subjects killed their gov
eminent could certainly not enforce
any claim against the United States
government, as the subjects were sim
ply breaking the laws Of this country
and were amenable to the laws of this
| government.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS VIEWS.
District Attorney T. r. Martin said
that he was perfectly sincere when he
asked for the conviction of the sheriff
and his deputies: that he gave the jur-
ors his views in his final argument, but
he supposed they did what they be-
1eved to be right Mr. Martin said
that if he were not an official of the
of the county he would be at greater
liberty to give his views, but he would
say as he did in his argument, when
the employ of the coal companies as
his deputies. These strikers knew who
these young fellows were and had no
idea that they would shoot at them.
Mr.. Martin thinks the sheriff should
have taken older men and men who
were not known to the strikers. Then
the strikers might have dispersed with
out the shooting. When asked if he
thought the other indictments against
the sheriff and his deputies would be
called he said he believed they would
Attorney John McGahren who was
associated with the district attorney
in pros ecuting the case. said there will
be another trial. I'VE will not examine
many witnesses" he said, but we will
present so strong a case that-Ye shall
confidently expect the conviction of at
least some of these deputies who wan
tonly shot down those strikers at Lat
timer" This is the view of the situa-
tion taken by Attorney John NJ. Gar
man, another Of the attorneys for the
prosecution whose comment on the
trial appeared in yesterdays Tribune.
Rev. Richard Aust, of Hazleton, who
took an active part in prosecuting the
sheriff and his deputies, made this
comment on the verdict:
DIFFERENT NEXT TIME.
IL am not surprised at the verdict as
j expected 1t, but We will have another
trial One mere, and ii will be tried
differently. The whitewashing the dep
uties received will not hide the fact
that there was grave wrong done at
Hazleton. But ] think mistake was
made to indict all of these deputies for
murder Many of them are good men
and are as innocent of this crime or
malicious killing as I am.
There are about eleven men among
that crowd who 1 believe are guilty
of malicious shooting and If they are
not punished 1t will be an outrage on
Justice. l don't think we will be ready
for the next trial until June, when we
hope TO bring the guilty to justice. The
next trial will not be long. Only a
few witne sses will be called and the
trial win be conducted along other
lines. We may swear out new war
rants for the arrest Of the deputies we
believe to be guilty"
The jurors received the following
amounts for their services during the
trial: Eli Weaver, laborer, Plymouth
township, S700; G. r. Shaw, carpen-
ter. Ross township, $3.50; Aaron Foil
man, rope maker. Wilkes Barre, $7613
A. II. Shields, carpenter, Wilkes Barre
s76.lS; Herman Gregory, farmer. Hun.
tington township, S91S; Adam Laroon
tinefnith SuQarlaaf tou,nsbin <