The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-24

Wltn causing Edt q hSSAO' " " held in peonage.
 Julius Sternfeld, Assistant District Att torney, and D. H. Riddle. associate coun- sel for the defence yesterday afternoon argued their cases. Today at o'clock w, M. Lackey, chief counsel for the de- fense will close the case for the deten- dant. District Attorney Warren s. Reese will then speak and after the charge of Judge Thomas G. Jones, the case will be submitted to the jury for their con- sideration.
 The feature of yesterdays session of the court was the attack made on the character and professional bearing of D. H. Riddle, counsel for the defence, whose testimony and the contradictory evidence of w. H. Couse, the notary were the sem sations of the trial. MT. Sternfeld in his arguments assailed MT. Riddle in bit ter terms The reply of MT. Riddle was to the effect that the remarks of MT. Sternfeld did not cause him any worry professionally for they had nothing to do with the case. MT. Riddle, doubted. however, that Mir. Sternfeld would have made the remarks out of court.
 F. M. Pruet, who is under number of peonage indictments was recalled by the government. No new testimony was de- veloped. D. w. Burns, a citizen of Goodwater, was called by the defence and corroborated the testimony of Pruet, which was developed on the proceeding day In reference to one of the negroes saying that he had been on Faces farm and wanted to work out his fine there Character Witnesses Testify. Oscar Franklin, a brother of the de- fendant, testified that he received no costs for locking the negroes up at Good
 water. w. o. Davis. J. H. Sprayberry and D. W. Burns, prominent men or Goodwater were character witnesses for Franklin. They testified to the good character of the defendant.
 w. H. Couse. the notary public and em- bryo justice of the peace. was recalled, He said that on the Sunday, when Riddle came to see him. Franklin and Pruet were also in Hol;ins. Riddle came there in d buggy.
 On cross examination, he admitted that he had talked with the district attor- neys in reference to the case and also with Captain H. c. Dickey, secret service agent He also admitted that he had read an account of the testimony of Riddle in The Advertiser.
 Court then took a recess until 33J o'clock.
 At the afternoon session of the court the attorneys began their arguments. As sstant District Attorney Julius Sternfeld opened for the prosecution. His speech lasted something over an hour and half He completely reviewed the evidence and in an eloquent and somewhat dramatic phillipic denounced D. II. Riddle, who was in the court room. MT. Riddle listened to the denunciation in dignified manner. but when he arose to speak his feelings became apparent and it was only by great self-control that he was pre- vented in expressing them His argu- ments however, were confined to the law, the evidence, and the duty of the jurors.
 The most sensational declaration of Mir. Sternfeld however. was to the effect that in hls opinion Riddle and Franklin had caused Governor Jelks to withdraw the commission of Couse. To this assertion the defence object MT. Sternfeld after the court had sustained the objection asked the jury to consider the circum- stances and form an opinion in their minds whether his surmise was correct or not
 Sternfeld on Pc-~-->
 The attorney for the government began his speech by reading the indictment and defining the term peonage. He said that Franklin was not charged with holding Pat Hill in peonage. but was charged with causing Pat Hill to be held in such condition. He said that the court would charge the jury that if Pat Hill was held in peonage and Franklin in any manner caused this holding, he was guilty of peonage under the law. He urged the jury not to consider the expediency of the peonage statutes. Suffice 1t to say that the law was enacted by Con gross and is in the law books. The question for them to determine Is. wheth- CT or not Robert Franklin Is guilty of violating this law.
 The speaker then reviewed the case minutely, from the time that Pat Hill left his home in Roanoke to work for the Sample Lumber Company, until the tlme of the speaking He said that the evil dence was undisputed that he left Roam oke after being urged by a labor agent who agreed to pay him $1 a day, give him his board and lodging. and transpor- tation to Rollins. No written contract was given. He then described the con- ditions at Wildwood, where Hill was put to work after reaching Rollins, how he had to buy his. meals and the scanty sleeping accomodations. This he said was violation of the contract on the part of the Sample Lumber Company, and Hill, as he had a perfect right to do jumped the contract, and set out on foot for his home. He had no money and under the law, he had a right to walk home Couse, an emplye of the Sample Lumber Company, then wired Franklin at
 Goodwater to arrest the negroes. Hill
 was arrested by Franklin and Pruet, lock- ed up and carried back to Rollins. where
 they appeared before Couse. Franklin
 was no commissioned officer of the law
 mad had no right to make the arrest. No
 affidavit was made and no warrant was
 sworn out. Mir. Sternfeld declared the
 whole proceeding was high handed. The Presumption of Couse. The proceedings before Couse were ab- | soluely void. Couse, he declared. had
 been advised by Riddle that he could try cases. The case was. in the opinion of Couse. a civil action and was so docketed. The notary simply wanted to reclaim
 what his company had lost by the sk'p- | ping of the negroes. When Franklin pad l the judgment of 8 and costs, it released Hill from all liability for confinement He declared the taking of Hill to Pace ] by Franklin in direct violation of the State law. for he had no commitment papers aud no commission to act as an officer. He declared the undiSputed evi- dence to be that Franklin received Sl37 50 for the negroes from Pace, and the bulk of this Franklin took He averre6 that Franklin made in the neighborhoou of S100 OF the transaction. and it was foe lucrative consideration alone that he took any hand in the arrest.
 Then" said MT. Sternfeli, "the uc- fendlnt coul1 well afford to pay A!r Couse $25 on the eve of the trial in ordcr t1e i'm fh ha th.A {