The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-11-05
FIR. Sturges' Last Blast.

chance of defense except at advertising
rates. For The Tribune we will say
that, though abundant chance offered.
no attack has been made upon Colonel
Hitchcock save in the line of legitimate
public argument. and no defense was
denied because none was submitted.
The one communication in his interest
contributed as II letter to the editor
that by Colonel Boics-Was printed
conspicuously without charge; and in
our advertising columns, on Colonel
IIitchcock's own proposition. and in
order to give Colonel 1itchcock's sup
porters the widest possible latitude. we
admitted yesterday an attack upon
Judge Carpenter which. If We had
wished to stine public discussion, could
very properly have been declined. since
representation.
That attack cited certain cases in
which Judge Carpenters judicial con-
duct failed To please Mr.. Sturges and
the Municipal league. The full facts.
which We're carefully kept out of the
HuN ADVERTISEMENTS. were lciltNs.
Henry Walthers, of West Scranton,
was arraisncd before Judge Carpenter
for selling liquor without a license. The
case was fairly tried and no complaint
Is made of the rulings of the trial judge
or his charge to the jury. But the jury
saw fit to acquit the accused. and Judge
Carpenter after receiving the verdict,
failed TO censure the jury for not con-
Victing Waithcrs. as the officers and
attorneys for the league felt II" ought
to have done.
Judges occasionally do censurc iuries
for verdictS returned but ii is dan
gerous custom and Il judge goes be-
yond his rights when he takes that
step. \ jury is selected by The altor-
ncrs for .thc commonwealth and de-
feuse and its members are sworn to
well and truly Try and true deliverauce
make. 1t is their province to pass upon
the facts and report their finding to
the court which is bound by their
Judgment Gross wrongs might easily
be perpetrated in the name of jus
judge to bully and scold every time a
jury differed from him in its findings
1t is to the credit of Judge Carpenter
that his exalted ideas of the judiciary
would not permit him To do that which
is not properly in the line of his duty.
The statement that the costs We're
afterwards remitted by Judge Ed
wards is wholly untrue, 1t was Judge
Carpenter TO whom the application
was made and by whom the costs.
which the jury placed on the leagues
prosecutor. We're stricken off.
Stephen Crowley purchased a saloon
at Olyphant in which was Il nickel-in-
thc-slot gambling machine. Crowley
did not want the machine, which was
out of order, and did not buy it. 1t re-
mained the property of the former
owner of the place, but Crowley agreed
that it could be left on the premises
for reasonable period to give the
owner an opportunity to dispose of it,
The machine was in a room in the rear
of the barroom and had Il card on it
warn people not TO put any money in
it. Professor Cummings, of Olyphant,
who drew up the bill of sale between
the parties testified that the machine
was not included in the effects that
Crowley bought and he also testified
that he knew it was out of order all
of the time it was in the saloon after
the purchase by crowley.
The attorneys for the league asked
Judge Carpenter 10 say To the jury
that the fact that the machine was in
Crowloy's place made out II case of
maintaining gambling device. Under
the facts in the case Judge Carpenter
had TO refuse to do 50, no charge as
the league attorneys requested would
have been outrageous, for the weight
of the evidence was To the effect that
Crowley did not own the machine and
from II. The verdict was not guilty
and the costs We're placed on the
leagues prosecuting agent
In another case it is charged that
Judge Carpenter issued a license irre-
gularly. No charge is made that the
license Was not as proper a one to be
granted as any other. The only accusa-
tion is based on an alleged small TECH
nicality, the failure to cause public ad-
vertisement of the license applicati ION.
This is pronounced violation of law
and of court rules, but there is not a
word in the Law or the rules requiring
of license granted
for am meXpred fraction of IA year, as
this one was. Either the league peo-
pie don't know what they are talking
about or they have stopped in this mat
ter to what, If done by ordinary per-
sons, would be hard to distinguish
from downright mlsstatement,
In blaming Judge Carpenter for Two
of the Municipal leagues failures To
convict Mr., Sturges shoves upon the
bench responsibility which he knows
rested solely on the jury, the supreme
judge of facts. Because the judge
would not usurp IA function not his by
law; because, in other words, he would
not break the law he was sworn 10