The Savannah morning news., 1904-03-08
WILL RESIST
PE0NAGE CASES
DEPENDENTS FILE DEMURRER
AND QUESTION JURISDICTION OF
UNITED STATES COURTS.

AlleSe That Indictments Charge De-
PENDANTS With no Crime Against
United states, and That Acts on
Which They Are Based Are In
cOnstitutional-Righ 10 Protect
Individual Rights Reserved TO
States-State Nothing Concerning
the Debt and Do Not Show That
System of PeOnage Existed.
In the United States court yester-
day demurrers were filed by William
2. Crawley, Thomas J. Mcclellan, C.
B. Mcleod, ]. a. Mcleod and L. Will
hanson to the indictments charging
them with having sold persons into
peonage.
The demurrers are both general and
special, and raise the point of the con-
stitutionality of the law under which
the defendants are indicted and con-
stitute one of the most important
points raised in the United States court
in some time.
The defendants are all prominent,
and their position has attracted con-
siderable attention to the case. Mr..
Crawley is a prominent attorney of
Waycross, Mr.. Mcclellan is an ex-
sheriff of Ware county and the Nc
Leeds and Mr.. Williamson are we'll
to-do planters.
The interests of the government will
be looked after by United States At
torney Alderman, and an imposing ar
ray of attorneys have been secured to
take charge of the defendants inter
ests. Mr.. Crawley is himself a law
yer, Mr.. Leon Wilson, Mr.. John c.
| Mcdonald and Mr.. w. w. Toomer
| filed the pleadings for Mr. Crawley
and Mr.. Mcclellan, and Messrs. Gar
| rard & Meldrim filed those for the
McLeods and Mr.. Williamson. The
arguments on the demurrers have been
assigned by Judge Speer for next Mon
daX.
Acts Are Unconstitutional.
1t is contended in the demurrers that
the indictment charges the defendants
with no crime, in that the acts of
| Congress on which they are based, in
so far as they are directed against the
acts enumerated and in so far as they
seek to give the United States court
| jurisdiction, are unconstitutional and
void.
II Is urged LHdL the dClS Dire Jill
| constitutional because they have no
warrant in the constitution for enact
| ment, and that Furthermore, they are
| in violation of Article X of the amend
ments. This article is the one which
| reserves the right to protect individual
| rights and redress individual wrongs
| to the sovereign states.
1t is further urged that the acts are
directed at states and territories, and
not at individuals.
These reasons bring up the question
of the jurisdiction, and the court must
decide whether the crime can be pun
ished in the state courts alone, or In
the federal courts, as well. This is
the first peonage case ever resist
ed in Georgia, except one which was
| dismissed by Judge Newman several
years ago on a similar demurrer. On
the other hand Judge Jones, in the
United States courts in Alabama, over
| ruled a similar demurrer, and it is
| probable that the cases will finally
| reach the Supreme Court.
PeOnage Not Established.
In the special demurrers it is claim
| ed that the facts recited in the indict-
ment do not establish the fact that the
defendants had established a system
of peonage. 1t is further urged that
| the indictment does not show that
debt was owed by the men alleged to
have been held in a state of peonage,
! when it was contracted, nor when it
became discharged.
In addition nothing is stated regard
ing the alleged contract between the
defendants and the McRees, to whom
the parties in question were alleged to
have been sold, and there is nothing
to show what privity existed between
| the defendants and the McRees. Fur
thermore there is nothing to show that
there was a pre-existence of a system
of peonage.
The details of the case have been
| published in the Morning News. to-
| gethere with the grounds on which the
| indictment for peonage was brought
| against the defendants.