The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-09-25
Attorney Beers Replies to the Grand
Jurors.

Edltor OF The Tribune.
SIR | solicit the favor Of enough Of your
valuable space in which to express myself on the
matter of the "censurc' of the late grand jury
which, under the circumstances l consider n
compliment
In the premises, I desire TO state that | bear
the honor of being member of the bar and an
officer of the court of the county of Lackawanna,
and, as such, am amenabc TO the court at all
times for my speech and conduct. II my action
has been such as to deserve rcprimand, it was
the duty of the grand jury to bring such action
to the notice of the court by formal prcsentmcnt.
Their failure to do so proves concusivcly to
my mind that they dared not. Any statements
| have made, | stand prepared to substantiatc
at the proper time, by competent evidence; and
as a matter OF fact, | did substantiatc the state
ments by legal proof before that august body
the grand jury, and | still insist that those
statements true and entirely warranted, not
wthstanding the assertion Of the jury to the con.
trary As an individual and representative of
the Municipal league and the MEMS union, l de-
sire to extend my appreciation and thanks to
them for the work they did do. For in the
main, they "have wrought a good work"
Nevertheless the grand Jury ignored every Sun.
day selling case brought before it by the people
! have the honor of representing; while, in con-
tradistinction, it found true bills in every case,
with one exception, where the charge was selling
without license, while the prepondcrancc of cyi-
dencc was in favor OF the former, the following
table shows:
John Coleman, selling without H.
ccnse; two witnesses testify .... "Tmc Bill"
Albert Buchta selling on Sunday;
same witnesses and one othcr.... "Ignorcd."
Catherine Cannon, selling without
license; two witnesses testify.... "True Bill"
Z. j. Fish, selling on Sunday; same
witnesses. .............. ......... ignored"
NJ. j. Gilbride selling without Ii.
ccnsc; three witnesses testify. .,.. "Tuc Bill.
Joseph Gerdzcnis, selling on Sunday;
five witnesses testify. ...,........ "Ignorcd.r
Ann Mcllale, selling without IL
censc; two witnesses testify .... "True Bill"
John Lisk selling on Sunday; same
witnesses ............... ........ "lgnorcd.'
Fred Miller, selling without license;
two witnesses testify. ............ Ignored"
John McAuliff, a bother, selling by
the drink on his premises; five
witnesses testify. ....,........... ignored"
stephen Flanagan, selling without
license; three witnesses testify. >. "Truc Bill"
George Wclka, selling on Sunday;
same witnesses. .....,............ Ignored"
j. c, Taylor, selling without IL
censc; three witnesses testify. ...."True Bill.
Henry and Peter Rcif bottlcrs, SELL
ing over bar by the drink
same witnesses testify. .......... ignored"
Richard Hulcder, selling without Ii.
Cense; two witnesses testify. ...."Truc Bill"
George Wuench, selling on Sunday;
four witnesses testify. .......... Ignored"
Mary Graf, selling without license
two witnesses testify. ............ True Bill 4"
OConnor and Walsh, selling on sun.
day; five witnesses testify. ...... "Ignorcd"
Thomas Gerrty, selling without H.
ccnse two witnesses testify. .... "Tue Bill"
James j. Kelly, selling on Sunday;
same witnesses. .................. Ignored"
The "nmth" paragraph Of the 'rcturn" is
absolutely incNplicabe and clearly deserves the
attention Of the court:
"Thc grand jury believes that an explanation
is due the court for the number of cases for
violation Of the liquor laws, by Sunday selling,
being ignored, it being the sense Of the grand
jury that in view Of the lcnicncy exhibited by the
Business Mems union toward those who have
promised TO abstain from future violations these
men whose cases were considered were also On.
titled 10 the same consideration. And while
the grand jury does not desire to 60 on record
as being in favor OF Sunday violations of the
liquor law, yet We believe that the public inter.
est will he served by ignoring these cases, be.
lioving that the yioators will cease their wrong.
| doing"
Were these same jurors not sworn individually
and collectively to leave no one unprcscntcd for
| fear, favor affection, hope oi reward or gain
but to present all things truely as they came to
| their knowledge?
Did not Judge Edwards, clearly and distinctly,
paragraph By paragraph, explain to them their
| oath and make plain to them their duty?
Did he not tell them that ii a prima face case
was made out it was their duty TO return true
! bill?
| Have they kept their oath?
Have they not shown favor?
! Have they not acknowledged in their report
! that they showed favor?
They might have just as well returned IN a
| murder case as one has pointcdly said eve liz.
more this case as the defendant has promised 10
hereafter observe the law and we believe he will,
and because the Almighty foryaye David tho
murder OF uriah; aud in thus doing We believe
| the public interest will be best served"
| Very respectfully submitted,
! Fred l., Beers.
| Scranton, Pa, Sept o.