The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1914-07-18
ACCOUNT
| OF THE B|LBO TRIAL
Courts Rulings Against the Defense
Victory Regardless Through
IncorruptibIe Jury.

and discriminating attendant upon
The Bilbo TriaIv at jackson. II
deserves the careful study Of every
reader. 1t bears on It's face the
sincerity of the writer and places
the fPcts IN the conduct of the case
just as they occurred.
1t is well for the people of Miss
issippi to know and to understand
the peculiar and extraordinary
judicial procedure to which Lieut..
Gov. Bilbo was subjected in his
recent trial at Jackson. The writ
er proposes to give this so-called
judicial procedure a vital and
searching criticism, not from a
partisan point of view, but from
the standpoint of cold -blooded
logic and analysis, Nm order that
the people may understand how
the jury delivered Lieut.. Gov. Bill
bo from the persecution that blazed
around him.
We shall not review the action of
the Circuit Judge and his satellites
in Vicksburg in the quashing of a
regular grand jury that would not
indict and in the organization of
the new and special grand jury
that did promptly find the indict-
ment. Nor will we comment on
the peculiar manner in which the
case was transferred to Judge Hep-
rv's court at Jackson. and the
selection of the judge who tried
the case. These matters have been
published with elaboration of de-
tail by The Issue and by the Vlcks-
burg Evening Post and will not be
repeated here. We will confine
this review to the events occurring
during the trial of the case.
In the first place, a juror was de.
cided by the Judge to be competent
who denied on his voir dire that he
had expressed any opinion in the
case, and was then proved by two
or three respectable witnesses to
have declared a few days before
the trial that Bilbo and Hobbs
ought to be put in the penitentiary.
So the defense was forced to use
one of their six challenges per-
emptory on this. incompetent juror.
Next came another juror who
was ruled by the Judge to be a
competent juror. although his
brother had been recently pardoned
out of the penitentiary for a felony
by the Governor. The pardoned
convict might as we'll have been
adjudged competent juror. This
took another of the defendants per-
emptory challenges.
When 1T came to the admission
or exclusion of evidence, the judi
cial hand showed itself in subtle
discrimination. Castleman, who
claimed that he had paid Senator
Hobbs $500. was, on this statement,
prima facie guilty of bribery, but
the Judge allowed him an absolute.
ly free hand to show that he was
not engaged in the bribery busi-
ness, but only gave the bribe to
detect Bilbo and Hobbs. Right on
the same line the defense introduc-
ed Hon. Swep Taylor, the Mayor
of Jackson, to prove that Taylor,
Lieut. Gov. BiIbo and Senator
Hobbs had gone into the affair in
order to detect CastIeman as a
bribe giver Instead of follow ing
the logic of the ruling on this line
that was made in favor of Castle
man, the Judge refused peremptori-
ly to allow Mayor Swep Taylor to
testify, and all of his testimony
which was clearly in complete ex-
oneration of the, defendant, was
sent odt from the jury in toto. .
Thus, SO far as the Judge could
force the issue of the trial on this
IIine. Castleman had a free hand, as
a witness and with his other wit
nesses, in showing that he was
acting as a detective, while the
principal witness for the defend
liant, on identically the same line,
and upon identicalIy the same rule
or principle of evidence, was shut
tout, absolutely, from testifying
before the jury. Castleman had a
| free swing from the start as a So
called detective.
| The State held back to the
| termination of the testimony, the
witness Sample. After all Of the
Testimony for the defense was in,
and the defendant had rested his
case. the Judge then allowed the
notorious Sample to take the stand
and tell his story about the alleged
proposed bribery in the celebrated
| Hines Land case. This was called
by the prosecution and by the
Judge. testimony by the State in
rebuttal, when according to the
correct rules of evidence and pro,
Icedure it ought to have been offer.
ed as testimony in chief, if it wai
competent at all, which it was NOT
Il But the rebuttal theory was
made to do duty forsthe occasion
and SO Sample delivered himself OF
THE fabricated story that Lieut.
Gov. Bilbo offered to have ths
Hines case dismissed for $50. 900
This testimony was objected to b.
1.-The defense on two grounds, viz
that it was Incompetent to intro
duce evidence OF another and dis
tinct offence, and that the evldencl
was not 10 rebuttal as the defend
ant had offered no evidence what
! ever on this point. The Supreme
j Court had held ii Collier vs.. State
: 1 A. late r.na<. -. The .nzxA saat 4hn