The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1913-08-21

on the OlueTS.
Judge Van Fleet instructed them to :,
make their findings on those counts as
to which they were agreed. A verdict
of guilty on any one count, he said.
would be a verdict of guilty of viola
ing the statute. and would carry the
penalty imposed by the statute.
The case went to the jury late We'd
nesday with no attempt by the de-
feIfss ito prove that Diggs did not
transport Marsha Warrington across
the state line from Sacramento, Cal, to
Reno, New. or that they did not live
there FOR three days as husband and
wife.
These acts, 1t was admitted, hat
been committed. but they did not con-
stitute violation of the Mann white
slave traffic act because they had not
been done with criminal intent. The
trip to- Reno had been an accident.
If Diggs and Marsha Warrington, with
F. Drew Caminetti and Lola Norris,
their companions, had not missed an
earlier train, they would have remain
ed within the state, and though their
offense against morality would have
been the same they would not have
transgressed a Federal statue.
This defendant" asserted the gov
eminent prosecutor, did not deny on
the stand the truth of the essential
facts we have shown here. He had
to admit them all The defendant in
criminal case usually relies on the
presumption of his innocence, but
this defendant relies on his own de-
pravity and Righteousness.
Admits Misconduct.
I'm seeking to establish that the trip
was not premeditated and that the two
girls had not been induced to take it
by threats of scandal on one hand and
promises of marriage on the other
Diggs willingly testified to his own mis-
conduct, into which it had led him.
when these girls went to Reno
their departure ment social ostracism
Marsha Warrington went because she
believed and trusted this man. She
didn't desire money, dresses or pres
ents. Her parents gave her these.
But this man had promised her mar
rage, as Caminetti had promised Lola
Norris.
These promises We're never intend
ed to be kept. What was intended
was to abandon the girls in Reno.
They never could have returned to
Sacramento-and you know what that
meant But the alluring promise of
marriage had been held out to them"
Attorney Roche was particularly Sc
we're with Digs for the misconduct
in his own home, to which he testi-
fed Monday.
He had not been content, said Roche,
with making an designation house of
his office, but he must similarly de-
grade privacy of home he shared with
a virtuous and loving wife.
Remember, gentlemen of the jury,
that ninety millions of people are
watching you this day; watching you
to be informed whether justice shall
triumph or lust shall rule; watching
to see if the laws for the protection of
girls and women are to be enforced in
this far Western land" was his closing
appeal. -....
Diggs' counsel, in summing up the
evidence, did not palliate these acts.
Paint this defendant as you will
a monster if you please" argued Rob.
ert Devlin, his senior counsel, "but
tell me what motive he would have
had in going out of the state for the
purpose of accomplishing these things
already accomplished.
Counsel may characterize as they
please, and may not differ with them
They say his act was shameless, and
may feel the same way about it
but it isn't white slavery"
This was the whole argumentative
substance of the defense. There re
NAMED the rhetorical and nominal ap
peals, and of course they were not neg
lected. The girls were blamed fol
tempting the men. They were called
willing accomplices in what evil hac
been done and the wisdom of trusting
a woman loved and scorned when she
bears witness against her lover who
mas discarded her called into question