The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-11-24

OF trafflc lot TWO uOuio anu " iiSiA'
had left the camp because he did not
like the water and because he was
sick and did not have the care ne
ought to have.
Mr.. Reese had sought 20 make the
Jury believe that, as Mr.. Harlan was
General Manager of the Jackson Lum- !
Der Co, he was crimlun1iy RESPONSE
BILE in the premises. This was lncor-
rect. Mr.. Hilton had stated he ala
not even know Laninger and had
never seen Hilton until he came 10
Pensacola. II Harlan did not know
Hilton how could their minds meet!
There must have been certain DEF
mite plan and Mr. Harlan could not
have entered into the conspiracy, ac-
cording TO the testimony
When Mr.. Hilton arrived at Laurel
Hill and sent the message lie could
not have known, that he was going TO
capture Laninger. The truth was that
the telegram had no connection with
the matter whatever.
With regard to Huggins's connection
with the alleged conspiracy MI.
Blount said there was no evidence OF
conspiracy; Higgins was not even In
the employ of the company at the
| time
All the testimony relative to the
WhippingS, etc, had no bearing upon
the case, Notwithstanding such te5ti-
mony tended to show there was some
difficulty at the camp at times. There
was not one scintilla of testimony TO
show that there was any trouble at
the turpentine camp excepting that
given by Buckley and two other boys,
and that was the camp which Laning'
er left ard the camp to wc1ch he was
returned
1t was common among men OF intel
ligence to judge other men by their
deeds; the actions of Laninger were
sufficient to convince anyone that he
had not been held in peonage. His
, return to the camp after leaving and
. getting as far as the Escambia bridge
! had shown conclusively that he had
! no fear of the conditions at the camp
The government, said Mr.. Blount
= had tried to ridicule the testimony o.
a Emil Lesser, a man whose word could
\ not be doubted, and whose position
f was such that it could NOT be assaileC
|. by the riff-raff from the slums Of New
t York.
e There was only one verdict possibl,
!. in view OF the testimony and that wa
+ verdict of not guilty. Mr.. Bloun
believed such verdict would be rem
e dered as such verdict was the onl.
o one which would accord with justic
\. and with right.
v w. w. FIournoy.
d Attorney W. w Flournoy, leadin
e counsel for defense, then addresse
e the jury. beginning by discussing tn
e law in the case He had been unabl
;e to find a decision holding that til
ir members of a conspiracy if they wer
not within the jurisdiction of cour
when the overt act was committed
could be tried by such court Tn
lo court at Washington has never deciC
,e ed a case holding that the partie
nc not in the overt act could be trie
AZ against their will.
W A conspiracy, said Mr.. Flournoy, al
- cording to common law was a con
N, binatiOn between two or more person
w to do an unlawful thing or a lawfl
PC thing in an unlawful manner, and rea
he decisions relative to acts that const
l. - tuted a conspiracy. showing that ther
~ must have been intent before any a
~ legged crime could be committed.
10 Mr.. Flournoy said defense woul
~ ask the court relative to the jurisdi
- tion of the Federal courts and tn
rs state courts; the right to protect
" person in the enjoyment or his lii
90 and liberty was delegated 70 the sta
- courts and not to the Federal courts
"a unless the state undertakes to tai
ne away life and liberty the Fourteent
"S amendment would not be brought in
play. Several decisions were cited
m '.,.t - 4t;e oo;.;or tn ON,
1o' thing this court has jurisdiction ov,
Ie is the charge to return to conditiC
rs of peonage; in order t., prove that
iie must be shown that a condition
,u peonage existed prior TO the time La
" niger WAS returned.
rs Mr. FlOuTnoy argued that the co
w. tracts that had been introduced We
"H of no moment and q matter wi
- which the court had nothing to {
10 unless IL could be shown that the me-
80 were held against their will to Il
- performance of such contract, and c
~ ed case from the New Mexici
81 courts in support of his contention.
"u After concluding his argument re-
q tive to the law in the case Mr.. Floj
"a -. noy addressed the jury relative to L
evidence He read a portion of Z
~ indictment, commenting upon {
yeri (continued on Seventh Paqe)