The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-10-19
THE CASE OF
 JOHN w. PACE Famous PeOnagc Case Be- fore Appellate Court. ARGUMENTS FOR PACE His Attorneys are Fighting
 Famous Charges. Peonsse Cases Were Appealed From Judge Thomas c. Jenes's Court
 to the Federal Court of
 Appeals.

The United States Circuit Court af Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. sitting in Montgomery yesterday. heard argu- ment by counsel for the plaintiff in err or, John W. Pace in his appeal from the decision of Judge Thomas c. Jones of the Middle District Court of Ala bama, who held him technically guilty of peonage.
 The court began It's second days ses- sion in the City Council Chamber at II o'clock. Judges Don A. Pardee, D. B. Shelby and W. T. Newman presid- ing.
 Another Montgomery case. James P. Bullock vs. Alfred A. Kohn, litiga- tion over a shoe patent, was submit ted to the court by argument by coun- sell.
 The famous case of John W. Pace was then taken up. It will be remem- bered that Pace, a prominent farmer of Tallapoosa County, was the principal defendant in the cases alleging viola ton of the United States statutes against peonage. After demurrers to the indictment of the United States grand jury had been overruled by the court, Pace entered a plea of guilty to all cases against him. Sentence was suspended until decision could be rendered on the ruling the lower court by the Cout of Appeals.
 w. W. Pearson of Montgomery yes- terday made the argument for the plaintiff in error. His argument was based on alleged error of the court in everything demurrers to the indictment against Pace:
 First-It is not alleged in said count that a system of peonage existed in the Middle District of Alabama at the time of the alleged offense.
 Second-Said count charges no of- fense against the laws of the United States.
 .Third-Unlawfully and knowingly holding a person forcibly and against his will and requiring such person to labor for the holder to work out a debt claimed by the holder to be due him from such person as set up in said count does not constitute holding such person to a condition of peonage un- der the laws of the United States.
 Fourth-There is no allegation in said, count that a system of peonage similar to that which existed In New Mexico March 2, 1867, existed in the Middle District of Alabama at the time of the alleged offense.
 Fifth-It Is not alleged in said count that the alleged peon owed the defend ant valid debt.
 Sixth-It Is not averred that any con- tract existed between the alleged peon and the defendant by virtue of which a condition of peonage arose.
 enth--Said count does not show the kind of service the alleged peon was required ot perform,
 Eighth--Sectiona5526 Rev. Stat. U. S., under which said count was framed Is unconstitutional and void.
 Ninth-Said count does not aver any facts showing that a condition of peon- age existed in said Middle District of Alabama at the time of the alleged of- fense.
 The defendant demurs to the second lowing grounds. to wit:
 First-Said count nowhere ayers the name of the person whom the defend ant Is alleged to have caused to hold the alleged peon to a condition of peon- age nor does 1t aver that the name of such person was to the grand jury un- known.
 Second-The defendant adopts as grounds of demurrer to said second count of said indictment grounds num- bered one, two, four, five, six. seven. eight, nine and ten assigned to the first count of siad indictment.
 Mir Pearson will today complete his arguments. He will be followed by Ju- Illus Sternfeld, Assistant United States District Attorney who will argue for the United States the defendant in er- TOT.