The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-19
AN UNJUST ASSAULT.

and refute the efforts of a few yellow journals at the North to biacken ths whole people for the misdeeds of a few
 As the cases were severally reached and tried. this paper contented itself witf faithful reports of what occurred. though it was not unobservant of political and other methods to break down a Judge who was manfully doing his duty in seek, ing, to enforce the law. When these at. tacks upon the court began to be made Judge Jones requested The Advertiser tS leave them alone, at least until all tn, trials were finished, and not to say 6 word in his defense. He was content tc let the issue speak for itself. and thought the people of Alabama thoroughly under. stood it.
 It declines to be silent now. since the friend of one of the defendants, mixing the merits of the case and politics, has gone upon the stump to try the case and assail the Judge who heard 1t. Elsewhere 1t publishes all of the speech of Secretary of State Hefiin on that subject at Luverne Friday.
 The pith of his complaint is about g case only half stated by him, the mos, material parts of which are carefully kept in the background. Here is what he says of the case. as he puts it:
 Recently in the Capital City, the old was selected to try Fletch Turner, a white man and a good citizen of Talla- poosa County. charged with peonage. The sought to establish that Turner had. with. three negroes held them in a condition on 1d 9drP Peonagea; a!a This, the defense denied, of three negroes in question sent one of their own color. John Parker of Dadeville. to Turner requesting him to pay their fines allow them to work it out, the negroes having been fined in court at Goodwa. ter for yagrancy. That at the urgent re- agreed to take them and paid the nroneS court.
 Was this the case? The evidence intro duced in Turner's behalf showed that ht bargained with the three negroes who hat been roped together by Dunbar, for foul months labor, they to be treated as con. victs. He never asked Dunbar for any commitment. or how long they were sen. tenced for. but paid him $40 for the three They were then taken to his farm and locked up in his prison. worked and beaten. The negro Helms escaped, and was recaptured. When the parents of these negroes sent from Columbus, Ga., to pay them out, he demanded and re- CAivnd SAG md fo the testimony, about $50 or s6O for the other two boys, receiving at least 80 or $10O in cash for these negroes. besides the benefit of the labor of the three. for about two months in addi- titn. The proof showed that Dunbar trumped up the charges against these boys, who had committed no offence whatever, that they were fined $6.5O apiece, and that no sentence was i'm posed. The court charged the jury that there was no semblance of law for talk ing them to Dadeviile or hiring them out there. It also charged the jury that, however voluntary might have been the agreement made with these roped ne- groes, who were put up for sale in vio- latioR of all law, that 1t amounted to nothing in law. if, after such agreement was made. Helms desired to leave, and was compelled by force to remain and work either to repay Turner his advance or to carry out the contract made with them. It said on this point that 1t was proved on all hands that Helms did de- sire to leave, for he ran away, was re- captured, and put to work again with Turner's convicts, and so kept until his father sent an agent, who paid Turner the $46 he demanded for his liberty. Turner availed himself of his legal rights and did not offer to testify, which re- lieved him of cross-examination. On these facts, which nobody disputed, which Turner's lawyers insisted were true and constituted a good defence, the court charged the jury, If they believed these facts, Turner was guilty of know ingly and Intentionally holding Helms to a condition of peonage. In discussing their duty in this respect. it asked if there could possibly be any reason what ever for disbelieving what the defend ants own witness proved, as we'll as the Governments.
 This was the case in which six of the jury deliberately refused to follow the law. This was the case. which left nc possible room for honest doubt. It was about such case, which involved only a matter of law that the judge plead with the jury to do their duty. and emphati. cally told them they would violate their oaths if they did not. In all this he did nothing more than his duty. He could have done nothing less. There Is no right of assassination by jury, of the law of the land. When it is attempted. all judges every where denounce 1t. Only last week a St. Louis judge denounced in unmeasured terms a jury who pretended they did not believe the evidence. which proved the guilt of lot of boodlers, and on that pretext refused to find verdict of guilt. The same racket was attempted about the right of trial by jury, but 1t deceived nobody. The good people of Alabama know when a judge does his duty and when he does not.
 Judge Jones told the truth-told it fear lessly-that was his offence. The good name of our race. our people and our section was involved, and he would have baen recreant to his dutv if he had