The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-11-01
A Lawyers Poor Logic.

Editor of The Times Dispatch:
Sir,-1n the leading editorial OF your
issue OF October 18th, you use the follow
ing language:
Il There can be no doubt as to Judge
aLewis's attitude year or SO later least
towards the legal aspect of this subject.
In 1878, Edmund Kinney. II negro. residing
in Hnnovcr county, was married IN WASH
#iEgton city to Il white woman, also from
Hanover. lie and the woman returned
Ito that county 10. live. In March, 1879,
Nthoy We're indicted, convicted and each
sentenced to five years Imprisonment in
the penitentiary. On May Is, 1879, appli-
cation for a writ of habeas corpus was
made by the negro to Nthe United States
District Court, Judge Robert ". hughes
presiding. Judge Lewis, then United
States attorney appeared for the petit
TONER and argued that the Act of Assem-
bly, making such marriage Il felony was
unconstitutional and void; that marriage
was a civil contract, and thnt under tho
civil rights law, negroes had full*power
TO contract with white persons as well
us with members Of their own race; he
also stated that Massachusetts had long
since repealed her prohibitory law on
this subject. Attorney-Genc Field APP
peared in this case on behalf of Vir-
GINA. The above report ;of the trial is
taken from the Richmond, Dispatch OF
May IA, 1879 ss 3aff $40
Judge Lewis made this argument as an
attorney, but 1t < Is fair to presume that
he was sincere IN 4nll his contentious, and
the incident indicates Ills state OF mind
at that time. 8 .i
TO follow this argument to It's logical
conclusion, 1t would seem that you would
have an equal right l to charge
an attorney with being in favor
OF the commission of any. crime OF which
an accused is on trial, or for which
there had been conviction. If lie at
tackled the constitutionnlity Of the law
under which the proceedings We're held.
For information. + would like you to say.
do yo, think that Mr. II. M. Smith, Jr.,
is personally in favor OF fraud IN Demo-
cratic primaries because he attacked the
constitutionnlity OF the law under which
indictments were recently found against
certain Democratic election officials for
fraud committed III the Democratic prl-
mary held in this city last June?
LAW LEN.
Answering the last question first. we
do not conclude that Mr., II. NJ. Smith
Jr., is personally in favor of fraud in
Democratic primaries because he attacked
the constitutionality Of the law under
which indictments were recently found
against certain Democratic election Off
Gals committed In the Democratic pri-
mary held In this city last June, but we
do conclude that Mr.. Smith was sincere
in his contention that the law was uncon-
stitutionnl.
By the same token We do not conclude
that Judge Lewis was in favor Of mixed
marriages because he appeared In court
as attorney for a negro who was con-
yictcd under the act prohibiting mixed
marriages, but we do conclude that Judge
Lewis was sincere, in his contention that
ihc net was unconstitutional. And that
is tho only logical inference that can be
drawn from an extract from Ine Times.
Dispatch which our correspondent quotes.
We were speaking, as the context shows.
of Judge I.ewis's attitude toward the
/ LEGAL aspect Of the subject" That
is 10 say, that he was of opinion as a
lawyer that this act was unconsttu-
tional. Judge Lewis himself has made
no denial that he entertained such an
opinion at the time, either in court or
out of court On the contrary, he has ad-
mitted that In the discussion at Chester
field Courthouse with General Hundley,
he said that in his View the act was OF
| doubtful constitutionality.
orr correspondents deductions there
fore, are illogical. AS we said In tho Sun
day paper. The Times-D Dispatch has never
criticised or condemned any lawyer fol
defending client no matter what thu