The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-15

Judge Witt. but they did not say that
| It was because OF tho actions or Ger.
tain lawyers that tho Judge of tho
Hastings Court was being reflected
upon.
Have they disproved the fact that
the Nirginia-C Carolina Chemical Com
pany Is sending out o foul smoke all
over town? All Of you have smcllcd
It, The charge was not against Judge
Witt, as they would have you believe.
but against the lawyers mentioned. ''
Mr.. Meredith presented the princl-
pies OF law as they bore on the de-
Tense as to doubt of the guilt of the
prisoner and as to the rights of the
press.
III they do not prove malice he
said, then must ask for a verdict
of acquittal j feel my situation +
am not representing d prominent citi-
zen" he said, almost pitifully. II am
defending a man who is a stranger
to you all, I presume. 1t is so natural
in the human system to stick by those
lie knows and to cast off tile others. 1t
Is so hard to throw off the feeling
for q friend, or the bonds of sym
pathy. They appeal TO you for their
friends sake. 1 appeal to you for this
stranger. How often is 1t said that
q man may be sent to jail for stealing
a loaf, and yet the sugar trust has
stolen s2,o00.000 in cash.
II want to know he continued.
where the connection with Atkinson
same from. except by Yoder's prompt
admission. Shall you say that be-
cause Atkinson had malice in his
heart, Yoder also bore malice against
these men? Where do you get Your
proof from except from this man?
And have you never heard of one mans
being tho cat's-paw of another? You
are asked to violate your very oaths
in presuming this man guilty. Have
you anything except the proof of At
kinsons malice? And / want 10 say. |
gentlemen he said. turning to tho
counsel for the prosecution, that ff I
do not go by the law want to be
Interrupted. to show me where this
man carried out Atkinson's malice.
There has been no fact introduced to
show that Atkinson had any directing
In the governing OF the policy of this
paper.
Cues lion Of Fact.
mo matter how we may view these
louses.' he charged, chat doesn't en- ,
cr into the question. The question
). did these men violate the law? Tho
majority of people do not believe in I
egregation, and they have put 1t on
he statute books
We find officers. the men who are {
lr. guardians night and day. con- +
oning this evil. Could we segregate r
'unterfeiters or thieves. and say to ,
lem mere you may violate the law. !
II eise"here you must not transgreSs? .
nd IL we permit q violation OF the !
w In one section, is that not a cor v
lpt alliance? An agreement between d
'rtain houses and the officers of the RI
W that the houses will be protect \
! is a corrupt alliance"
lie went into the definition of the d
ord corrupt" saying that its mean t
& must be determined by its use and {,
and that it does not al /
avs necessarily imply bribery. He s,
ok up the. Malloy case, and sharp m
arraigned Justice Crutchfield for a,
IT COINS. into it further. when the
idence in court showed that two
omen got drinks there. He blasted
the evidence brought against Yoder.
ying that Commissioner Manning.
as the only man who gave direct
ldence that the alleged conversa-
IN did not occur, and that the eyi-
nee OF the other witnesses was not AL
to what they saw, but as to what
ey didn't see. in
Mr. Meredith made an eloquent plea. mi
y many We're surprised at the Of
'ensth of his line of argument. He
down rather weariedly III