Omaha daily bee., 1906-02-19
REACTION OF TRUST RULE
Verdict in Grove Case Thus Viewed by Rev.
John Williams,
RICH AND POOR WEIGHED, NOT EVIDENCE
Father Williams Declares No Honest
Unprejudiced Jury Could SO
Decide. Yet Cudaby and
Trusts Are BIa m BILE.

I'm my Judgment no twelve honest, un-
prejudiced men bound by their oath TO
render true verdict according to the
law and the evidence could have brought
in the verdict that the jury in that case
rendered" declared Rev. John Williams
rector of St Barnabas Episcopal church, IN
the course of his sermon yesterday morn
ing referring to the outcome of the Pat
Grove case Father Williams said the
jury made the mistake of ignoring the
main issue and the Grove letter of con-
fession and addressing itself to the ques-
ton, "who is tho greater criminal Cudahy
or Grower" Several other Omaha ministers
took occasion in their Sunday discourses to
condemn the verdict Continuing, Father
| Williams said:
Had the jurors considered the evidence
alone: had their minds been free from
every consideration save the one question
which they were sworn to determine;
| Did Pat Grove rob Edward Cudahy of
$4,000 by compelling him under fear of
| bodily harm to his son. or did he notg
| They could not have acquitted him. There
| was his own confession, in a letter to
! priest, not under the sacred seal of sacra-
mental confession in any sense. He ac-
knoweldged the act He offered TO restore
s21, 900, not because he was penitent and
|
far as lay in him; not because he wished
to submit himself to the direction of his
former pastor; not that lie offered to
restore, hut on condition that Mr. Cudahy
should compound felony. There that
/ tell-tale letter! That confession of the
crime! Yet one Of the jurors declares they
paid little If any, attention to that con-
fession They spent seventeen hours de-
batting the evidence and their verdict. but
they paid serious heed to Groves own
confession Now. why? Was It not be-
cause the chiefest issue before the minds
of that jury was not, rs Grove guilty or
not guilty Of the crime charged but. Is
II just or equitable to send Grove to the
penitentiary for twenty years for taking
$4,000 from Edward Cudahy, when the lat
ter, together with the other wealthy mem
bers of the packing trust, stand before the
| bar of justice to answer for violation of
| law to an extent that makes Groves crime
Nenial in comparison. They stand before
the bar of justice, represented by some of
| the most subtle, able members of the bar
fighting the Submission of their own con-
fession Of violation OF law. Just as Grove &
lawyer fought the admission Of his con-
fession. They stand confessed of VIOLA
ZION of law, a violation that was intAnded
to enrich themselves at the expense OF the
public
... Reasoning of the Jury
That was none of the Jurors business
II is true. They were not called upon to
determine whether Grove or Cudahy was
the greater, criminal. The latters guilt of
violated law is vet juticially undetermined
and neither that jury nor we have the
r6ht to PREJUDICE the members OF the pack
ing trust And IL the jury did have the
night that was not the issue But il the
secrets of that long discussion in the jury
shall ever be disclosed ii will be found that
the verdict turned ,lpon the question as TO
whether Grove orr Edward Cudahy were
the greater criminal
Their answer was given. From their
point of view they rendered rough and
ready justice Pat Grove shall not stand
behind the bars of pcnitentiary for taxi
ing $4,000 of the many. many millions
which the packing trust took and is talk
ing from the people at large. while Mr.
Cudahy, member of that trust, walks
and will walk the earth free. That is the
lesson of the. verdict. and it is only very
small part Of the lesson which men In high
station ought to take to heart in their In
satiable pursuit of great wealth at all
hazards. The iury's verdict indicates the
cleavage that is going today between
the wealthy and the poor. 1t is a peril to
be faced. The lsboring men compose our
juries The wealthy will not serve. They
have neither time nor disposition TO sit on
juries What reason have they to object
to verdict against them, when they them
; selves do not hesitate to violate or evade
! tho laws. or at all events the justice. which
poor men are required to obey? The Grove
verdict is that so far as robbery is con-
cerned Edward Cudahy Is the greater GRIM
inal Grove. therefore. shall not wear the
criminals stripes and stand behind the
steel bars |of a criminals cage. while the
former walks the land free, clothed i'm
broadcloth. That is the bare. naked mean
ing OF the verdict. And II is not wholly
without reason behind IT. however much
any of us may be offended or outraged by
: thus putting Mr.. Cudahy and the proved
felon. Pat Grove. in the same category OF
violators of the law. to the wrong and in
jury of their fellows. Whether we con-
sent or not to that. the thing will be done.
Today It f. the setting free OF q confessed
|, villain; tomorrow. II We heed not the signs
OF the times, II will be something in
: hnitely worse for the men OF great for
tunes. doubttuIly obtained"
savidge Fear. Mob Rule.
Rev. G. W. Savidge in his sermon OF
THE Country Saloon at the People S
church Sunday night referred to the Pat
Grove verdict He said:
81 think this verdict Of acquittsl is an
awful thing. II sometimes looks as though
our jury system has become farce. II
our courts and lawmakers cannot find a
4 remedy for such excesses as this our COM
munities will he forced to do what the
: early settler did, that is, TO have a vigi-
d lance COMMITTEES. We cannot keep down
mob rule II things go on like this. The
n feeling of the people Is too intense. The
u people feel far worse about this verdict
p than Is generally known. Whose child Is
safer they are asking II men who commit
crimes like this go free. am no advocate
n OF mob law. but II will he impossible &c
e hinder II IL we have much more of the Pat
o Grove kind of verdicts. have heard II
i suggested by number that there should
y be a meeting to give voice to the public