The Sentinel=record., 1911-12-06

THOUSANDS SURGE
 AROUND COURT
(contlnued From Page one.)

, the facts and the law applicable thereto, deem it due to the court and to this community that l should r mako brief public statement re- garding the circumstances attending the abrupt close of these cases to- gether with sufficient comment to l indicate my views as to such cir- | cumstances. This is done in the hope Of correcting. if possible, some
 misconceptions due to erroneous pub lications and particularly to an arti- cle which appeared in a local newspa- per ca the second instance over the signature of Lincoln Stefiens. Tn the first place the claim or
 suggestion that the termination of the cases was due to the efforts of
 himself and other outsiders who un- dertook to influence the officers Of the court-other than the judge--is without justification in fact.
 q also wish to denounce tbe i claims Of that gentleman and of otk- CT persons acting for him. that the change of pleas from not guilty to
 guilt was due to his efforts as Il groundless and untrue lie is cor
 rect in the statement that the court was not a party to any negotiations
 for what he terms a 'compromise' oi II these cases but there is no ground
 for any claim that he induced the prosecution to come to an agreement
 in the matter. The district attorney acted entirely without regard to Mr.
 Steffens and on lines decided upon
 before the latter appeared on the
 scene
 II "As to the defense, the public can
 rely on 1t that the developments o,
 last week as to the bribery aad at
 tempted bribery of jurors in the Jas. | B McNamara case were the efficient | cause of the change of pleas which
 suddenly brought these cases to an
 end. The district attorney could have had James B. McNamaras plea oi T guilty long ago if he had been vii l ling to dismiss the cases against his | brother, but he refused. insisting that I the latter was guilty and should sur-
 fer punishment. | The first proposition from those interested In the defense were that l James B. McNamara should change
 his plea from not guilty to guilty
 on. condition that he should not be
 sentenced to death and that his brotn
 CT should go free. The district at
 torney would not agree.
 Afterwards emissaries from the defense brought to the district at- l torney the proposition that James Me
 Namara would plead guilty anu pe-
 sentenced to death f the court SC ordered, provided that his brother
 should be saved. But the district at
 torney still would not agree
 1 Those interested in the defense
 continued to urge his acceptance o! l the last proposition for ten days or
 more and until the bribery develop. ments revealed the desperation of
 the defense and paralyzed the effort l to save John ]. McNamara by sacrl.
 ficing his brother. Thrn 1t was that I the change of pleas of these men
 was forthcoming.
 The notion broached the Stef-
 fens article that the McNamaras in ! the commission of the crimes as con
 fessed by them, are two heroes is
 offensive to common intelligence and | repelIant to the conscience of afI just men--to say nothing of the ab
 horrence of the law for such senti. ment-and l am confident the district attorney was not influenced by any
 such sentiment in considering the
 proposal that the defedants should l withdraw their pleas of not guilty. | Upon the entries of the pleas of guilty both defendants placed them
 selves on the mercy of the court and Il the. responsibility sole and undivd.
 ed developed upon the court to de.
 termine the punishment. That some mitigation of the extreme penalties
 demandable by the outraged law
 might be 4xpected in consequence
 of tue change of the pleas in these cases, is in accordance with the prin- :, ciple commonly accepted in the ad ministration of criminal Jurisprudence.
 sThat expectation has not bo@
 disappointed in these cases. At the same time the duty of the court In tixng the penalties in these cases
 would have been unperformed had it been swayed, in any degree by tht
 hypothetical policy favored by Mir steffens, who by the way, is a pro 1 fessed anarchist. that the judgment
 of the court should be directed to the