Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-03-28
mot GUILTY" is THE
VERDICT In jim JAM
" JEMS CASE
Continued from Page One.)
defendants was therefore tremendous
ly great.

ly great.
Review Of the Case.
This was the third trial of Clark
and Crockard and the hardest fought,
according to those who were present
and followed the proceedings in the
two previous trials. H..
The jury was secured when recess
was taken Wednesday evening. Thurs
day morning the district attorney ad.
dressed the jury as to the govern
ment'a charges and then followed the
Introduction Of the evidence by wit
nesses for Uncle Sam. The defense
had no witnesses, nor did it have in
the preceding trials Of March and
June, 1913. .
The Closing Arguments.
District Attorney Hildreth took up
his closing arguments to the jury
when court opened at 9:30 o'clock yes
terday morning. His first statement
was to the effect that in his opinion,
the arguments to the jury by the SEN
iOr counsel for the defense were Moth.
ing more or less than plain hypocrisy
and sham. He called attention to the
fact that Mr.. Bangs had attempted to
show Postofice Inspector Angler of
Chicago, one of the witnesses for the
government, as dealing in perjury and
forgery in connection with a certain
letter aiming to show over what ex-
press company he had received the
shipment of the semi-annual or Sep.
TENDER number of Jim Jam Jems re-
lated to in the 25th or second of the
two counts under which the defend
ants were charged. /
Again Reads Articles.
Mr.. Hildreth again saw fit to offer
and read other articles in the semi
annual edition which the government
charged as obscene. He favored two
of these, Chicken Chasing" and "The
Scarlet Woman" with his closest scru.
tiny. These he made effort to show
were in ommon with other foul liter
ature that this issue contained, and
which he emphasized and ridiculed as
having no such purpose as warning
the youth and innocent against the
immoral pitfalls of life. The district
attorney repeated his accusation that
the defendants were "make believes"
and that the almighty dollar and not
the work of reformation prompted
their motives. Before closing his ar
gument he referred to the evidence
on which the government had based
it's charges, and demanded the pro-
lection Of the home by putting the
publishers out of business. Mr.. Hid
lre eth, c ,9n his arguments at 11:o9
O'Clock" N
i'N6d Judge Charges Jury.
Judge Booth then set forth his in
structions to the jury. In his charge
he stated that the defendants were
Jointly charged on two counts of the
indictment, the End and 25th, with
violations of the provisions OF Section
PAS of the penal code Of the United
States, relating tc the deposit of lewd
obscene, filthy literature for delivery
through channels of interstate COM
merce by common carrier. The is
sues to be decided were the knoWl-
edge, purpose and contents of the de-
posts, and question as to their OBJ.
scenityoor not in relation to the indict-
ment under which the defendants
were charged. The judge charged
that whethe: or not the motives Of the
defendants were to bring about and
perhaps did effect some good in the
entirety of the magazine or magazines,
this did not excuse the publishers or
hold them not liable for any obscene
articles, paragraphs or sentences in
the respective issues. .
If the jurymen after careful con.
sideration in their own minds,
that the magazine or mag
azines contained nothing that was
obscene, however, a verdict Of mot
in favor of the defendants