The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1910-06-09
WARREN PLEADS
HIS OWN CASE.
E'1tc'r OF the appeal to Reason Disagrees
W1ch Eraleent Counsel Defending His Case
and Makes Unique and Able Defense

AAhS ~ oay "iiat tnlnk should be said,
L desire to waive all that counsel for de-
fense has said with reference 20 the gov
ernment s inability to prove that this en-.
relope was mailed from the office of the
Appeal to reason, of which l am editor.
l wish to waive all the objections inter
posed by my attorneys and the arguments
advanced by them why 1 should be given
new trlai. do not want u new trial
This case has cost the defense $4,000.
a new trial before jury of my political
opponents, selected by the district attor-
ney S office from among government EN-.
ployees, or those who hope to get a Fed
eral job, before q judge prejudiced
against my cause, could result only in an.
other miscarriage of justice.
In waving the arguments of my attor.
neys on these points-(and 1 wish to saw
here in justification of my course at this
time, that the theory on which this case
was conducted in the lower court was
over my vigorous protest)-I do SO to
put the issue squarely before this court:
is the mailing of this envelope with the
offer of n reward printed in red for the
capture and return to the Kentucky au.
thorities of ex-Gov. William Taylor,
under indictment at that time for mur-
der, violation of the federal statutesa
Stripped of all legal verbiage and tech
nicality, that is the issue here and no
other.
My attorneys argued in the brief sub
mitted that the indictment is defective
L do not pretend to know about this.
Will say, however, that have no desire to
have my sentence set aside on a mere
technical defect in the Indictment, and
would regret to see the issue involved dis
posed of in this unsatisfactory manner.
1t would still leave the question in doubt
as to whether the mailing of a reward
printed in red, for the capture of fugi-
tive Republican politician, is violation
OF the Federal statutes.
1 call the attention of the court to the
testimony introduced by the government,
showing that I submitted a draft of the
alleged defamatory envelope to the post
master at Girard and asked his opinion as
to its AVAILABILITY. The postmaster, the
representative of the govern ment inform
ed me that in his judgment there was
nothing in the postal laws that would
prevent the mailing of this reward offer,
as hundreds of similar cards and enyel-
opes were mailed in the course of a year
at the Girard postoffice This certainly
establishes my good faith. No man with
criminal intent would voluntarily submit
the evidence of his contemplated crime
to the agent of the institution against
which the crime was directed
In this connection 1 wish to call the
court s attention TO the statement made
from the bench by the trial Judge, that
when this matter was first submitted to
him, he himself was in doubt as TO
whether the mailing of this envelope was
a violation of the Federal statutes If
the law is so indefinite that even a trial
judge is unable to determine whether a
crime has been committed, until after he
had consulted higher authority, how is
the laymen to determine what is lawful
and what is not7 In the lower court g
decision on our demurrer, Judge Pollock
stated that the language was not scurri-
lous and threatening, as charged in the
Indictment, but that it was defamatory.
inasmuch as it was calculated to impress
the reader thereof with the thought that
exGov. W. S. Taylor was wanted in
Kentucky by the authorities of that state
for some alleged crime. Under this de-
cision every offer of reward for man
charged with crime, mailed by a private
individual or civil officer, is a violation of
the federal statute under which this in
dictment was returned against me- In
order to prevent this construction and its
far-reaching consequences, Judge Pollock
in his final summing up of the case, de-
cided that it was not defamitory nor
scurrilous, but threatening It is hard
for the average man to follow such Judi.
cial reasoning and I sincerely trust that
| this court s opinion will be written in
such clear and unmistakable terms that
| there will be no question as to this law
in the future.
1t will be argued by counsel for the
government that kidnapping is a Grim,
| and therefore, an offer of reward t,
kldnap ex-Gov. Taylor is threat agains
| that gentleman. 1 will ask the coupse
for the government to cite the fedora
| law constituting kidnapping a crime. n