The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-02-15
A DENIAL OF RIGHTS
COUNSEL SO DESIGNATED MANNER
GRAND JURY WAS DRAWN.
CHARLToN'S ACRID SPEECH.
GREENE AND GAYNORs SHOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED TO PLEAD.

| Counsel for Defendants in Trial for
Conspiracy Argued Their Clients
Position on the Demurrer to Their
Pleas in Abatemcnt-Mr. Charlton
Said Failure to Observe Statutory
Regulations Was in Effect n De-
NAL of the Rights Conferred by
the Law Upon Persons Accused OF
Crime-Right to object Not Lost
! by Fight Against Return to GeOr-
Gin.
The arguments for the defendants
upon the demurrer filed by the govern
ment to the defendants pleas in abate-
ment in the Greene-Gaynor trial were
made in the District Court of the
United States yesterday. The ar
guments by Hon. Walter G..
Charlton and Hon. D. w.
Rountree, consumed the entire
session of the court and at their con-
clusion the case went over until this
morning. When court convenes to-day
the concluding argument for the gov
eminent will be made by District At
| torney Erwin.
The principal argument was made by
! Mr.. Charlton, who in a forceful, elo-
| quent and at times, despite the dry
character of the questions under dis
cussion, fiery and impassioned speech.
| 1t was the contention of counsel that
| the provisions of the law regulating the
manner in which grand juries should
be drawn, summoned and impaneled
were mandatory and not merely direc-
tory; that they were designed to throw
around persons accused of crime the
full protection of the law and to as
sure them a just and impartial investi-
cation of their alleged guilt at the
hands of the grand inquest.
The pleas in abatement, said Mr..
Charlton, showed that these provisions
| of the law had been violated in terms
and spirit and that in this manner the
| inherent rights of the defendants had
been seriously and materially impaired.
They should not be required, said coun-
sci, to plead to the merits of an indict-
ment returned by grand jury selected
| after a fashion that violated every
mandate of the law.
Defendants Couldn't object.
He contended that the defendants
| at the time the indictment was found
by the grand jury were in New York
| state, in the pursuit of their legitimate
| business, that they had no notice of
| the impanneling of the grand jury nor
any notice. that a case against them
would be presented to such grand jury,
they therefore could not object to the
method of impanneling the grand jury.
Of fl,a d
ings had in New York after indictment
| and the bond required of them there,
| they had no opportunity of presenting
to the court the matters set up in
| their plea in abatement until the case
was called at Savannah on last Tues
day morning. He insisted that instead
of looking upon the plea in abatement
with disfavor, as the government con-
| tended. it should address itself to the
most favorable consideration of the
court.
Your Honor sits here to see that in
| nocent people are not convicted, and
that innocent people are not tried on
bad paper. Pleas setting up misnomers
| have been received with disfaVor be-
cause they meant simply the loss of
term. But here we go to the iItteg-
rity of the entire proceeding. Why, may
it please Your Honor the question has
| arisen in your honor's time in this very
\ court, and your honor had to pass upon
the point as to whether a man had to
be indicted by a grand jury or could
| be prosecuted upon an information I'LL
ed by the district attorney. Your hon
or's decision was probably the first on
| that point. Your honor decided that a
man accused of an infamous crime
had the constitutional right to have
the charge against him investigated
| by a grand jury. That addressed itself
/ af Ion
court Why should not our contention
| that the charge against us has not
been considered by a grand jury prop
| erly constituted? We say we have had
no grand jury"
No Legal Existence.
Mr.. Charlton argued that the
grand jury was an illegal
grand jury, and that it new
| er existed because the law had not
been complied with. The composition
of the jury box was not presided over
! by the clerk and the jury commission
| er, but the deputy clerk acted instead
of the clerk. The jury was actually
| drawn in Macon, and not in Savan-
NAH the jury boxes having been for
| warded by the clerk to Macon not
| in the custody of a deputy clerk or
| other official of the court. While the
! jury box at the time of the drawing
| contained over 300 names, as required
| by law, the names of persons resid-
ing in Chatham and Glynn counties
were eliminated, thus bringing the
number below 300. While admitting
! that the jury was drawn in open court
| in Macon, Mr.. Charlton said it should
| have been drawn in open court in Sa-
vannah, and it made no difference that
| the Judge marshal and deputy clerk
of the entire district were present.
'If / have got a right; if the law
says that the government shall do a
| thing, where my interests are con-
cerned, and the government does not
| do it, / am not called upon to set up
wherein / have been injured or where
| in l have been prejudiced If the law
| has not been applied when the law
says It shall be applied, that is my
| injury. These so-called Irregularities
/ are illegalites. A"
Mr.. Charlton contended that the act
/ of Congress provided that the Judge
should appoint a jury commissioner Of
the contrary political faith to the clerk
! and that they should select the names
for the jury box, and that If the clerk
/ had the right TO depute this duty to
"A deputy. II might happen that the
/ jury commissioner and deputy clerk
were OF the same political faith.
Comrade GiIIespie's Politics.
Judge speer interrupted to ask n the
court would not take judicial notice of
the fact that Comrade Gillespie was
neither a prohbitionist or a Democrat
Mr.. Charlton replied that Judging
by his sober habits one might think