The leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1895-1905, 1899-01-25
DOES GOV. M'LAURIN DESERVE
VOTE OF CONFIDENCEY

Senator Murray F. Smiths speech at
Meridian Dec. 18th, and Gov. Nc
Laurin's reply thereto delivered in the
same city Jan. 18th. Though long, our
readers are urged to read and study
both speeches carefully, for, aside from
their personal features, the character
and result of the impending State and
Senatorial campaign will hinge largely
on the issues thus raised.
Hitherto The LEADER has taken no
part in the Administration and anti
Administration fight which has ragged
with more or less vigor among the
Democrats of Mississippi for the last
two years, based on the charges and
counter charges defined so clearly in
these two speeches; nor is it our pur-
pose now to enter generally into dis
cussion of the issues thus raised. AS
we are Prohibitionist and firm be-
lever in 16 to /, which the Governor
processes to be, and Senator Smith is a
gold bug and uncompromising whisky
man, if we conceived these to be par
amount issues in the controversy
which we do not--our sympathy and
support would naturally be on the side
of the Governor.
There is one stigma and dark blot on
A. j. McLaurin's escutcheon as Govern
or, however, not mentioned by Senator
Smith, and suggested by the Sutton
episode which the Governor dwells
upon in his speech at such length, that
is to our mind more dishonoring to
him as an official and a man than any
thing so far laid to his charge by Sena-
tor Smith or any of the rest of his crit
les. We refer to the pardon by him of
Fox, one of the Dinkins murderers.
Let us recite the facts. twill be re-
membered that while the Democratic
State Convention which nominated
Gov. McLaurin was in session in Jack
son early in August, 1895, Marshall,
Fox and Coleman, three young men of
Vicksburg, hunted down and murder
ed at the railroad depot of Brandon a
man named Dinkins, against whom
Marshall had personal grievance.
Soon after the murderers had been ar
rested and jailed, Nominee McLaurin,
with the prospect of soon becoming
Governor vested with the communication
and pardoning power, was offered and
accepted a retainer as leading counsel
for the defense. This glaring indiscre-
ton and act of impropriety on the
part of the head of the ticket of a
get of the hot and scathing criticism of
the entire Populist press of the State
and very large portion of the Demo
cratic press as we'll. Marshall, Fox
and Coleman were quickly indicted
and brought to trial at Brandon, and
| their crime was so fragrant and unmit-
igated, that Counsel McLaurin and his
legal associates at once realized that the
only way to avert conviction and death
sentence was to have their clients enter
plea of guilty and receive life SEN
tence in the penitentiary. This was
accepted by the State and it was done.
Meanwhile the criticism of the State
press was spreading and swelling into
a cannonade. 1t was openly and freely
charged in some quarters that whereas
Nominee McLaurin had been guilty
of gross breach of propriety in the
first place by accepting fee as coun-
sci, it would be an easy matter for him,
if elected Governor, to pardon during
his incumbency the men he could not
save from the just penalty of their crime
as their counsel before the courts, 1t be-
gan to look at the very outset of the
State campaign that the Democratic
party managers would have to. haul
down the head of the ticket or see him
suffer defeat at the polls.
Realizingsthe gravity of the situation,
few days after the sentence of Mar
shall, Fox and Coleman, Nominee and
Counsel McLaurin caused to be sent
out from Brandon to the press an in
terview, in which he used the following
words, referring to, the pardon issue
that had been raised:
II do not think the friends of Mar
shall, Fox and Coleman would make
such an application to me. think it
,could be indelicdfe and improper for
me to grant a pardon in this case, and
uould therefore neither grant the par
don nor consider the application"
About the same time, Il letter to
his friend, Mr. Bonner Richardson, of
the Delta Flag, under date of Aug. 10,
1895, and published by Mr.. Richardson
in his paper soon afterward, Nominee
and Counsel McLaurin, among other
things intended to allay criticism,
said:
"In reference to the idea of a petition
for pardon, / feel that it tconld be indei-
icate and improper for me, If elected
Governor, to pardon in this case, and I
,could, therefore, not consider such an
application
1t will be noted that in these
declarations, intended for the people
of the State to read, that Nominee
McLaurin distinctly affirmed that
he would not only not pardon his
clients, if elected Governor, but
would not consider such an appli-
cation.
Criticism was at once sifenced and
disarmed, except on the part OF rela-
tives and friends of Marshall, Fox and
Coleman, who found fault at the pros
pect of being debarred for four years
from having the next Governor even
consider a petition for their pardon.