Evening journal., 1914-11-18

by showing that they we're not in the
court room. and were thus called
contrary TO law. In this way, by
concerted and partisan efforts gem
orally recognized as such at the time,
solid Republican jury was secured.
before whom the trial proceeded. The
testimony, in all its horrible details,
strengthened BY that of an additional
witness. WAS the same as at the first
trial. But, as Mr.. John c. Higgins
says. this time Neal was acquitted
mo criticism is here intended Of
Mr.. Anthony Higgins efforts to clear
the prisoner whom he had been ap-
pointed to defend, but a clear state
ment of the facts attendant upon the
trial and the state Of public feeling,
as Il existed. is due to the truth OF
history It cannot detract from
whatever credit may be rlghtfully
due Mr. Higgins as an advocate. and
It is only intended by the writer to
subserve the cause of truth and JUS
tice.
Let me repeat the salient facts;
/ AT the first trial, before a jury Of
Republicans and Democrats. Neal was
convicted of the horrible crime for
which he VAS indicted. after an
hours doliberatlon, and the judgment
of the court distinctly approving the
result of the trial, pronounced. Not
one word Of criticism in the public
press. by the members Of the court
or counsel. was made as TO the merits
of the case. The trial was had be-
fore court. distinguished for learn
ing and abillty.--every member of
which stood high in the esteem OF
this community. Politically, they
were evenly divided, two Democrats
and two Republicans. Each member
OF this court pronounced itself salts
fed with the first verdict. and no
charge was ever made in any re-
sponsible quarter. that political bias
or unfairness Of any kind obtained
al that trial.
Certainly these facts, taken in
connection with the action of Cover
nor Hail. Ga Democrat in granting
two respites, on the recommendation
of the Attorney General IN order "a
give Mr. Huggns the opportunity. Of
which his delay had deprived him. o
prosecuting his appeal to the Su
preme evidences the absence
Of anything like prejudice or un-
fairness on the part Of those charged
with the administration of Justice a.
the trial or with the execution of Tho
: laws OF the State.
"The writer refrains from charac
terizing further the unfounded state
ment in the pamphlet above referre,
> to. in regard to Meals first trial.
"The writer, as an official partici
l pant In both trials, has persona
] knowledge as TO the facts he ha
e herein stated. and he can only charg
e the statements referred to, to wan
? Of sufficient familiarity with thos
facts on the part OF the writer O
g that part OF the pamphlet.
e Aside from the opinion OF thos
4 under the influence of the partlsa
p and race prejudice that was evoke
s on both sides. at the second trial,
9 was regarded generally as a miscal
Il riage of Justice, and however niue
u the distinguished subject of Tn
n pamphlet referred to, deserved cred
i for his professional success,-thi
d success was not considered at tn
Ie time, nor since. as vindication
e, truth or innocence.
Id "As already said. there is no d
oi sire or intention on the part of q
I'd writer Of this protest, to belittle q
OF Just fame of Mr.. Higgins, or detra
e. from the encomium that has be'
rs pronounced upon him. His only d
s. sire. as he has said, Is 10 vindica
e the truth of history. He believe
r however, that Mr.. Higgins fame an
s reputation is based upon sure
! foundation than that indicated in N
l. part Of the pamphlet to which refer
; ence is made"