The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-14
CENSURE FROM THE JUDGE
Pointed and Sharp Language
 From Judge Jones
Understood That Throughout the De- Alterations the Standing Was Ito 5-First of the Peonage
 Cases to Be Tried.

<AAe0t ndhBiug Saturuay ana yesterday. the jury trying the peonage case against Fletcher Turner. late yesterday afternoon reported to Judge Thomas c. Jones of the l United States Court for the Middle Dis trict of Alabama. that they were wholly unable to agree on a verdict. The jury was discharged and mistriaI ordered in the case against Turner.
 The jury reported Saturday that they were unable to reach verdict and were given an additional charge by Judge Jones. When the jury reconvened at il o'clock yesterday morning, however, and no verdict was reached in several hours. 1t became apparent that a mistrial would ! result. Judge Jones, however, did not send for the jury, He decided to give them every opportunity to reach ver- dict
 Yesterday afternoon about o'clock ha communication, which they wished to pre- sent to the court
 1t is understood that the jury through out the deliberatIon stood seven for cou- viction and five for acquital. It is said that these five turymen who stood for ac- quital had made up their minds before en- tering the jury box to render a verdict
 
 When the jury reached the court the fol- lowing questions and answers were sub mitted
 The Court-Gentlemen I will be glad to receive any communication you desire to make to the court.
 The Foreman-I do not see any possible chance to agree upon verdict.
 The Court-Is that the opinion of all the jury?
 To this question several of fhe 4,,rvu,a,, gave an affirmative answer
 The Court--Is 1t the opinion of all of you that you canot make a verdict? All the jurymen then signified that was their belief.
 The Court-Under the circumstances, af- ter what has happened, tke court will hold you no longer. There are, however some | things it is my duty to say to you before you go l say them, not only as judge, but as an Alabamian, as a Southern man, and as an ex-Confederate soldier. read fly understand how disagreeable it may be, at times. for a man to discharge a duty that Is unpleasant; to face hostile opinion, prejudice or passion, and to be misunderstood. These things come to everyone who courageously discharges his duty. Nevertheless, I had hoped that this jury would be strong enough to do their duty and reach conclusion, when the evidence was clear, without conflict in any material particular, and the de- fense relied on was based on it's truth. The general charge was so clear as to your duty that none of you could fail to understand it. It shifted the responsi5il- ity from the jury to the court, where the law, on the undisputed facts. put 1t. When you returned, after considerable de- liberation. and asked instructions the sec ond time. it was quite apparent there was a disposition, not to say determine Ion. 4t. nfc f.f 3<, fe-.4 the charge of the court. I then felt tt my duty to respectfully. but earnestly and plainly, tell you what this refusal of the jury to do their duty would mean. hoped thereby to prevent failure of jus- tice. As you are to be discharged, 1t Is unnecessary now to reiterate it. must tell those of you who would not agree to a verdict, which the court informed you the law demanded, of the position in which you place yourselves, and the in- jury you do. Whenever the evidence ia plain and undisputed and but one plain, reasonable inference can be drawn from it, what the verdict shall be, is ques- ton of law for the court, and there Is no authority in this State or in the United sition. The jury usurps the province of the court. when 1t refuses to take the law from the court in such case.
 Seeing the evident reluctance on the part of some of you, which I will not characterize by any harsher name, to render any verdict against the defendant, because, as l thought, you believed 1t might result in harsh punishment, although it was a matter with which you had nothing to do, told you plainly that 1 did not consider this a penitentiary case. I wished to relieve the jury, if 1t wished to do it's duty, of any obstacle which you might feel made your path of duty hard. After an earnest charge had been given you. which unnistakably covered the point upon which unwilling ness to enforce the law is put. it was clear to me that some of the jury by in sisting upon the point as an excuse, had forgotten what the duties of jurymen were, and what they owed to their coun- try and their oath. The court then stated to the jury there was no doubt, under this evidence, that the defendant know ingly and wilfully' held Helms in con- dition of peonage. Some of you, how ever, insist on refusal to follow the law as given you
 Let us see what merit there is in the excuse set up for refusing to render a verdict Nobody denies, and all the proof shows, that Turner bought Helms and paid .33 for his labor. for term of about four months; that he made a contract with him while he was tied, in the ldnQS UT the OillGSft pHONlueQ TOT working him as convict; that he did so work him. recaptured him when he escap- ed, and forced him to work against his will, until his father pad S46 for Helm's release. This was holding him in a con dition of peonage, and this is what Turner did do, and what he intended to do. It was explained to you, in the first charge. that it was not any excuse too exculpate Turner, that he was told the boy was a hal vybnn frt ha liberties of his fellow-man. it was his duty to take some pains to find out at least if he could be legally held, and how long he could lawfully hold him. You had the evidence before you, and the charge of the court on 1t, that the fine and costs was $6.S0; that there had been no sentence, and that there was no au- +t,, 10 falra fhfe how TIar,,s avxrruJ.ara,