The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-11

Rno8CQ any OEOlHAH88 VI Wnt<<At 8fs% WY was authorized to do so. On the contrary the Mayors testimony is that he had nothing to do with 1t. though there is testimony to the contrary. So far as 0iennie Helms's rights are concerned. he stood, when he end his companions were being bid on at Dadevilie. just as though some rufiian had come on the streets Of 0oodwater, and picked him. and forcibly carried him of to hire him out. In the eyes of the law he stood just as one of your boys would stand If he were thus robbed of liberty. am glad to believe that Turner had nothing to do with the beginning of this enterprise. which re- suited in this citizen of the United States. this citizen of Alabama--'' 'nisger" though ..e was--beirg brought up there in that rufaanly way, bound, helpless and prts- oner. and sold out without any authority of law1 Where comes in the defendant? You cannot take a man up and sell him like you would sheep. or a COW, and against his will. and say I didn't know was doing wrong. didn't have any Intent to do wrong
 Intent to Wrong.
 Now what Is the intent that the law
 nquires to make wrong? It is the knowing snd intentional doing of the acts and things that constitute the violation of law No man can ever come into c court of justice. end say had no in- tent to violate the law. It is true did things that the law declares in violation of law. but I did not know 1t. Anarchy
 would take the place of government. Law end order would be at an end. There is another provision in this charter. When the Mayor and Aldermen lawfully hire a man out. he is entitled to credit of not less than 35 cents a day for each days labor. According to the undisputed tes- tifmony in this case, about twenty or twenty-one days work would have paid the inc of each-one of these persons. Even if they had been hired out in ac- csrdance with the forms of law, by di- rectior of the Mayor and Aldermen, no one would have had authority to held them more than twenty-one days, if they latored twenty-one days.
 The law requires man to have some regard for his fellow man. Turner was charged with some care not to infiict srevious injury and harm upon his fellow
 man. Both the law of God and man charged hi mwith this duty. Suppose he Tad observed his duty in this regard. He would have asked. for what term are these n1er sentenced to labor? Do you be- lieve if a lawful sentence had been in this S~tSCN hhuth0bB tHat MT UTHtE WOuiu have bought this man. expecting to work Tim four months? If he had inquired, he would have known. He would have said,
 T won't pay you forty dollars for twenty days labor of these people, A man who trfffics in the liberty of his fellow man Is charged at his peril to know the facts and to obey the law. charge you that It is the law. that there can not be any such thing as contract on the part of e man Go be worked as a convict, confined as convict, put under guard. to coerce him to labor to pay for an advance on a purchase of him.
 Let us so a little further If there could be a voluntary contract. which there cannot. then the moment the man says I repent of making that contract. want my liberty; I want to leave here,' then the law sets up it's shield and says you shall not hold that man to that con dition, under the pains and penalties of the statute.
 As to Contract.
 Nov. do you believe Gienny Helms was there voluntarily? Who was that contract made with? The contract was made with Dunbar. Turner says will give you ef0 for these fellows. Thus he got dominion over them. He was the man who purchased their liberties. These men were there. bound. iawlessly held there. They wre going to be bought and sold Under these circumstances, he buys thern from Dunbar. and drives q bargain with them. when they were terror stricken at the thought of going to worse place. Was that voluntarily? Would any honest man on that jury say If he had made . contract under like circumstances, and wanted to regain his freedom, that he made it of his freq will?
 Now. then. if you believe this evil dence. and it is not disputed in this he was brought back by force, and put back there. confined. put to work. and his father has to ransom him. pay money to get him out. To claim that he was not there unwiilingly smacks of dishon. esty and folly.
 Now I don't say this Is a penitentiary ofRense. The burden in the United States Court is put upon the Judge, when ju- rfes convict men. to say what the pun lshment shall be. fear my heart often improperly controls my judgment in such matters. I repeat. don't say it Is pen ltentiary case. Turner paid money for these people. He didn't stop to think of their rights. He was utterly indifferent about their rights. if only he could make A satisfactory bargain, with these bound men. He says I will buy them for S4O anu VIII heep them nere, but they Will have to work under my dominion and control and will have supervision over their persons. and control just as I do over my other convicts. Is there a man on that jury who calls God to witness that he asks God to help to do his duty, that can say on this evidence and under the charge of the court, that that boy was there voluntarily?
 Well, then, the only other thing in this case is this, did Turner claim a debt or obligation against Helms? Did he exact 1t? Did he require it to be paid, when Helnass father sent there? Was or was not his attitude: Here is an obligation this boy has contracted with me, have advanced $4o for three of them. and am holding him for the obligation. Does any one dispute that he got S46 before he would turn Helms loose? Now charge you in law 1t does not make any differ ence whether that obligation was or ill., So a man. under claim of debt or obligation. whether 1t existed or not, makes use of 1t to deprive a person of his liberty. and takes control and donin- ion over his person. and forces him to labor. against his will to repay that ob- ligation he is holding him to ''condi- ton of peonage'' just as fully. legally and morally as If there was debt based on a pronissory note. that the man held un- willingly to service. didn't dispute.
 Concerning the Time.
 The indictment says on or about the | day of April. Time is not of the | essence of this offense. so it was commit |