The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1899-04-12

las he Puct;G!ite!tu suCu "PpOsiIio''
o tie ~dispersar, law as in C~lum-
oia. The N. re tact of the prnfeS
sion Of a constable. he It .tes, ia sufi
sent to prevent their testimony be-
'ug given sny Weight.
J. B. Cooley, iu his afid.vit, states
that he was arrested, and that th'
general presumption was that be was
a constable, which, be says, is not a
fact, O has he ever beea. Yet, be-
lieyiny him to be a constable, the
prejudice against him was so great
tdat The coronel's jury held him as
an accessory to the murder, while tho
report that be had anything to DE-.
with it had no foundation. He Wa
on the street, fifty feet away, whel.
the shooting occurred. He further
stated that he would be afraid t
come to Columbia to stand trial even.
as he had been informed that ht
would be killed if be ever came back
Consequently he is staying away a.
present.
J.C DJrn, another Of the const =
b'es, afirms that there is a DEEP
seated prejudice against the COL
stable in the county.
W. r Crawford, the defendant.
doesn't believe that be can get a fai'
and impartial trial and asks that thu
| case be sent to another county. Bu'
for the protection aft 'rded him and
| the constables by the Sheriff and hi:
deputies, the Mayor, and the police
and the military he believes be would
have been lynched. The sho t g OF
Mrs Stuart has greatly intensified
the deep feeling heretofore existing
against the constables. The feeling
had been further intensified by tb'
publication Of the articles in tb'
S late and Southern Christian Advo'
cate. The people generally are in
sympathy with the violation OF the
law and he alleges that defendants
hava been acquitted notwithstand
ing the positive evidence OF the fac:
| given against them by the constables
Gases have been disposed of ever
when defendants themselves admit
ted facts which were in violation &:
the law. Merchants and reputable
citizens had admitted, so he was in
formed, that constables could not ge'
a fair trial in Columbia, but they de-
| clined to make afidavits because they
feared it would ipjure them in theil
business. Finally he alleges that il
be should return to Columbia his lift
would be in jeopardy, even though
be came to stand trial.
This completed the afidavits OF
the part Of the defense, but Mr.
Thomas read extracts from the loca
and editorial columns of the State
which, be held were calculated
prejudice public sentiment agains'
tie ccnstables in this particular case
He also read an extract from tn
Christian Advocate to show the same
thing.
Mr.. Thomas, referring to the testi
mony before the Coroner's jury, sale
that Crawford was the only const
bic mentioned in the testimony ex
cept Cooley, who, it was stated, wa
on the street fifty feet away, and tn
others, only so far as to say none O
them were drunk, yet the verd G
mentioned all of them as being
guilty of malicious murder.
The prosecution, curiously e .ougE
brought in an affidavit from C'lont
Flost, also, to sustain its. contention
agails st granting a change. In thi'
affidavit Colonel Frost says that thu
crowd would have assembled any
where in the State under similar cir
cumstances; that he believes that The
defendants can get as fair a trial il
Richland as they could anywhe,e
else.
Mayor Lipscomb thought thai
equally as large a crowd would have
gathered elsewhere in the State. Thai
he had talked with citizens that night
and he had heard no threats made
against the constable. The dispen
sary law is as well enforced in Co
lumbia as in any other place in the
State and prejudice against it is moi
such as to pre- clude a fair trial being
given the defendant.
J. S. Campbell, T. H. Hyatt, Owen
DAILY, J Q Marshall, W. H Funder
burk and f E. Calvo individually
affirmed that they believed that a fair
trial could be had. Practically the
same were the sfidavits of F. P. Nc.
Intosh, ". T. Muller, E. G. Shull, w
D. Radcliffe, G. O. Marshall, of the
city, Chesley Jones and W. H. Cobb