Los Angeles herald., 1910-07-31

hend clearly how 1t stands with the
district attorneys office, not only as
regards this particular case but as
regards the thousand and one other
cases in which the poor find them
selves in conflict with the majesty of
the law. This is vital, essentially vital,
| for every one of us, individually and
Tor the fair name Of this city collec-
lively, since this case will be discussed
throughout the country.
| I am not at all concerned with the
| first part of Mr.. North's statement, in
| which he discusses, as a technical
! lawyer, the question of whether Judge
Hughes was or was not right in grant
ing Horning liberty. That Is a question
| for the supreme court to decide, and
| Mr.. North's personal opinion, be 1t
biased or unbiased, cuts no figure. But
I am concerned with the following par
agraph, which quote entire:
1--WE believe that Mr.. Horning is a
shreWd young man who is guilty of the
crime to which he pleaded guilty, and
if it were not for the fact that 1t was
outlawed we should give him a trial
simply because he says he wants one
But both he and his attorneys know
that any of the numerous burglaries
and robberies with which he might be
charged were barred by the statute of
limitations within few months, and
until that time was up"
STATEMENTS ANALYZED
There is the statement of the deputy
district attorney, speaking for the Of
flee. The paragraph quoted consists of
Just two sentences, and l shall analyze
each.
AS to the first sentence I desire to
say again that Mr.. North's personal
opinion as to Horning'S shreWdneSs is
not worth the paper it is printed on;
but there is this criticism to be passed.
In the eye OF the law Horning, since
Judge Hughes order, has been free
and innocent man, and no deputy pros
ecutor has any right whatever to be
airing personal opinions designed to
create public prejudice against legally
innocent man. In the second place, the
words, 'if it were not for the fact that
it was outlawed we should give him
trial" are, to me at least, so ambigu
Gus as to be unintelligible. Does 'ft''
mean the murder charge? That GER
tainly cannot be outlawed.
1t is the second sentence however,
which 1 particularly wish to criticise,
for therein Mr.. North states that both
he (Horning) and his attorneys must
know that any of the numerous
burglaries and robberies with which he
might be charged were barred by the
statute of limitations within few
months"
I say that statement, used against
defenseless man now once again be-
hind the prison walls, where he is not
even permitted to see a paper published
in this state, is dastardly. 1 say that,
from the legal standpoint, Mr.. North
knows well that if Horning had COM
mitted "burglaries and robberies" the
district attorneys office could have
taken action at any time within three
years, and nothing like that period has
elapsed. Furthermore, as a man of
ordinary common sense, | know anu
the public knows, that if at the time
of Capt. Auble's killing it had been
found possible to prove Horning guilty
of robberies he would have been SO
charged and they would have sent him
up for life. The authorities had spared
10 pains to paint him as villain be-
side whom Capt. Kidd shrank into in
significance.
REAL CRIMINAL DEAD
In it's editorial of July 80 The Herald
says "It is known by every newspaper
reporter and all the police officers in
the city that following the killing of
Capt. Auble 1t was deemed necessary
to punish some one, and, as the real
criminal was dead, Horning was made
the goat" I say that editorial state
ment is absolutely true. l myself was
in active newspaper work in this city
at the time Of Capt. Auble's killing; I
talked to many newspaper men about
the case, and never found one who
did not take the attitude of The
Herald's editorial writer
Mr.. North's statement, for which un-
questionably his chief, Capt. Fredericks,
also must be held responsible, is tanta-
mount to saying to the public, the
necessarily ignorant public: "If you
only knew of how many burglaries and
robberies this man Horning actually