The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1903-07-01

| MIR. Nelson wanted the Court to know
that these hard times referred 10 was
the bitter fight between the Tillman-
ties and Conservatives. Although he
belonged TO the latter side, he was not
afraid To say that such Il state Of feel
ing existed now and that no one did
more TO cause this than the late editor,
| n. G.. Gonzales.
Some stress was put on the aifidayit
of Judge .. w. Buchanan. i'm which he
referred 10 Il conversation between
MIR. Nelson and County Auditor w.
III. GibbeS. Mr.. Gibbes had always
been close personal friend to Mr..
Gonzales and he did not blame him for
his bitter feeling towards Mr.. Tillman.
Your Honor will also take judicial
cognizance of the Act of 1902 at, page
l,O60, where the duty is devolved upon
the county treasurer, the county audi
tor and clerk of Court of Common
Pleas and General Sessions of selecting
aud drawing jurors i'm the Circuit
Courts OF the State. Mr.. GibbeS be-
ing county auditor this duty dcvolved
upon him.
In the case Of State VS. Sullivan, 80
). c., 400: The Judge on being con-
vinced that Il fair trial could not be
had by reason of the interestedncss of
one OF the officers who drew the jury
the Court saying that it was well set
tied that the jurors must be returned
10y impartial and diSintercStcd officers
and that one of the officers whose
duty it was TO return the panel was u
relative of the deceased, and impartial, :,
and as some time would elapsc before
his term of oilicc would expire and the
defendant being entitled TO speedy
trial, change of venue was ordered.
Attention was called TO the fact
| in 4,
Carolina Courts in reference to news
paper publications. In New York
several cases were cited where changes
OF venue were given on account of
newspaper prejudice.
The ailidavitS of Mr.. A. Il. and Mr..
w. Il. Gonzales do not deny, that ON
the day after the notice for change of
venue that there was published an
editorial entitled "Only Criminals
Fear Il Fair Trial This was done
only TO affect the minds of the people.
The prosecution says that the minis
terS did not refer TO the case from their
pulpltS. Mr.. Nelson then read sew
cral extracts from the prayers that
were offered on the Sunday after the
shooting. Every single affidavit pre-
Scnted by the defence shows that Col
Tillman cannot get a fair trial and
they also state the reason why he can
| not get Il 1alr lrlal.
Washington a. Clark has called
Gonzales martyr and. Tillman an as
SaSSin. The same is true of John j
McMahan. The newspapers have pre-
JUDGED the minds of these people by
publishing numerous facts i'm regard TO
this case. The defence has not only
made reference TO these articles. but
has presented these clippings to the
ui8lSnS = -
MIR. Justice Mccall OF New York, In
the case of People VS. Bullctt, granted
Il change OF venue on the ground that
the newspapers had prejudiced the
minds OF the people SO much against
| the prisoner.
These cases are cited to show how
similar cases have been treated i'm
other States. Col. Nelson then read
several similar cases to the Court
showing that changes of venue have
| been granted on the ground that news
papers are sufficient TO prejudice the
minds OF people SO much as TO prevent
"A fair trial.
In closing Col. Nelson said that it
had given him no pleasure to make
the criticism OF those with whom
he had formerly been friends. He was
always willing to give the deceased edi-
tor the credit OF believing that he was
right and did not now want to change
his course.
MR.. BELLINGER'S ARGUMENT
The next argument was that of Ex-
Attorney General q. Duncan Bellin-
ger. a thorough review of the case
was made by this distinguished attor-
ney, who began by refuting the argu-
ment presented Wednesday by Col.
George JohnStone for the defence He
said:
Has there been any fact presented
Dy wnlch you can form anopinion that
The defendant cannot get fair trial
in this county?
The same legal principle which pre-
walls in jury trial, that the State
must prove its case beyond reason
able doubt, does not pre- vail at all in
TINS judicial investigation. The queS-
tlon Is: Can James III. Tilman re-
celVc fair trial in Richland County2
1t Is a well-known principle of law
that defendant must be tried at the
place in which the crime was com
mittcd. In oldcn times ii was the
custom for the witnesses of a crime TO
decide on the case. The idea of change
OF venue is a comparatively new thing
In law. Col. JohnStone said i'm his
argument that twO-thirdS OF the atIi.
davits made by the defence were those
OF wcll-knOwn citizens of RichIand
County. This argument is illogical
and Circuit Judge knows one maif
like another and SuppoSeS them all TO
he fair-mindcd
When the defence says that Mr.. w.
y. Clark, j. J. McMahan and w. II.
LyleS affirm that the defendant is a
murderer this does not dcbar thcmfrom
saying he can receive a fair trial here.
They do not allcge that these gentle
men would lie: that their prejudice
has carried them so far thatthcy can
not tell the truth. The prosecution
does not make the allegation that tile
three hundred and fifty men who
made atiidavits for the defence would
give Jim Tillman anything but fair
trial. The four hundred and fifty af-
tiantS for the defence, who sworc that
TIllman could get fair trial, certain
ly would give him Justice
The Gonzales brothers and James a.
llOyt, who were so much attached tC
the dead editor, would not sit on the
jury.
Gen. Bcllingcr made reference tC
the case OF the State against Williams
At that time both sides could object
to twenty men and the State could