The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-04-22
FRIDAY APRIL %, 1904
P~REJUDGING THE CASE.

1t in said that when the battle OF
Waterloo was fought news was sent
to England by means OF the semaphore-
telegraph. The dispatch read, Wei
hngton defeated"- At this point in
the message a thick fog came up and
lasted three days, SO that no further
news could be sent Dr. received. For
three long days all London was in deep
mourning. When finally. the fog lifted
and the balance of the dispatch was
received, it was. "the French at Water
loo" The mourning, Of course. was
changed to rejoicing. This illustrates
what We see going on about US almost
daily. Conclusions are being Jumped
at upon partial testimony and great
trouble experienced thereby. TO De ca
tirely revolutionized by getting all the
facts later. Some newspapers appear
to expend their chief labors upo con-
illusions reached before all the evidence
is in. When will people learn to save
themselves great discomfort by waiting
till the other side is heard before they
j~udgment?-P. r. Law, in
The RObeSOnean.
Brother Law is always conservative
and is continually giving good advice
to the more hotheaded and t~yrannically
disposed members OF the press. He is
eminently correct in the above. 1t
would be much better. always to wait
for both sides to be heard before jump
ing to a conclusion. 1t is a true saying
that there are two sides to every ques-
ton. And especially under a criminal
charge should no man be condemned
until there has been a full disclosure Of
the facts. Further, the law declares
that every man shall be considered in
nocent until he is proven to be guilty.
Therefore. we say that no man has the
right to d%enounce. especially in a wide
ly circulating newspaper. another to be
a co~nspirator, a thief, a perpetrator of
fraud. until HI has been ~adjudged to be
guilty of those crimes by a jury.
1t is easy enough for a man who has
no regard for the rights OF others or
who thinks that he is vel protected
to denounce all those who refuse to
think as he does or who go contrary to
his wishes or interests; but denuncia-
ton and utilization do not establish
facts.
McBee and Finch stand indicted in
the superior court OF Wake county on
the charge OF conspiracy to defraud the
state. Whether they are guilty or not
we do not know. No one will know
until q Jury of Wake county has passed
upon the question. We would have no
right to declare them guilty or innocent
until such jury had passed judgment.
No other man or newspaper should
take it upon himself or itself to fore
stall that jury and declare in positive
terms the guilt or innocence Of these
men. Such position is an assumption
which the above quoted maxim forbids.
Why should these men be singled u
by the editor of The News and Observer
of all the persons who have been
charged with grave offenses in that
county since the establishment OF that
paper and it's policy entirely changed
in their case and denounced day after
day by its editor for the crime with
which they stand charged? Why
should he so far depart from his usual
custom of standing mute. as he should
until the jury had decided the case?
Was The News and Observer ever be-
fore known to PREJUDICE a case and
forestall the action of a jury by declar-
ing the defendant guilty or innocent?
There have been some tragedies in
Wake OF recent date which shocked
the entire ~populace of the state The
editor of that paper did not rush into
print to declare the innocence or guilt
of the accused parties. Why then his
haste to do so in this case. unless it is
for the purpose of influencing public
sentiment against the defendants in the
county from whose people the jury is
to try the case is to be drawn?
The News and Observer cannot justi-
fy its position by claiming that it has
knowledge of ali the evidence which
the state will introduce in the trials
of these indictments. 1t may be able
truthfuIly to make the claim that it
has this knowledge. and we do not
doubt that it can, but that does not
justify it in pursuing a course calcu-
lated to condemn these men in public
opinion before they are put upon trial.
As TO the guilt or innocence OF these
defendants. regarding the specific
charges. we know nothing. but We
maintain, as we have from the first,
that We can see no crime in a man sim
ply buying stock in a corporation for
the purpose Of becoming a stakeholder
so he may be in position to make appli-
cation to the courts to have a receiver
appointed for h corporation. This.
we a k it. vas lone by n of the
defendants. Whether any criminal
steps were taken by him in this proce-
lure is a question entirely for the. jury,
with which we have nothing to do at
present and OF which we know nothing.
That the road should be taken out