The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-05-12
SCHULTZ AcQU|TTAL
WILL HAVE EFFECT
OF TIGHTENING LID
Citizens of Portland Angered Because
Jury Returned Verdict of Not
Guilty In Face OF Evidence
EDITORIALS EXPRESS AN
HONEST INDIGNATION
Defender OF Accused Man Announces
His Candidacy for District Attorney.
VIII Be Fought BY Anti-Saloon Lea
que OF Oregon.

Portland. Ore, May 11.-Sometimee
the friends of the outlawed liquor
traffic go too far. and their efforts to
bring discredit on prohibition only
serve the good ends sought by the
righteous. 1t looks now as II that
might ensue in the case of George
Schultz, proprietor Of the buffet in
the Perkins Hotel.
Schultz was arrested, charged with
violating the prohibition law Of Ore
gon. The district attorneys office
obtained overwhelming evidence of
sales of liquor. Schultz did not deny
the sales His bartender gave cor
roborating testimony. Apparently 1t
was a clear case. Yet the twelve good
men and true of the Schultz jury sol
EMMY returned a verdict of not
guilty.
The attorney who defended Schultz
and obtained his acquittal immedi-
ately announced his candidacy for
district attorney. in opposition to the
incumbent, Walter II. Evans, the ag
gressive prosecutor who did his best
to obtain q conviction.
The Anti-Saloon League has. of
course, taken up the project Of thu
reelection OF Evans, accepting the
challenge thrown down by the de-
fender of blind pigs.
The Jurors who disrega rded a world
of evidence in the Schultz case are
Herman Schade. J. B. McKenna,
Paul Bartholmy. e. Gunderson, Will
liam J. Miller, W. E. Hayden A. r.
Matthews. N. Iremonger. Charles w.
Ehrstrom, c. w. Vedder, John F. Ma
honey and B. Kilkinny.
,ic he a.
Intoxicating liquor was bought.
Intoxicating liquor was found.
There was a Federal retail license.
The admission of the bartender.
No explanation was offered by the
defendant. :.
VIII Not Tilt lad. =.
Far from lifting the lid. further per-
formances like the Schultz acquittal
may lead to a general move by the
dry forces to clamp II down still
tighter all around. f.
The tightening might even go so
far as to prohibit me importation of
the two quarts of spirituous or twenty
four quarts of malt liquors each
twenty eight days. as permitted by the
present law. So much is limited by
Samuel Connell. weil-known dry lead
er, and one of the members OF the
Committee of One Hundred, which
took an active mart IN the campaign
rat sent Oregon dry.
Mr.. Connell alsc expressed much
surprise at the action Of the jury
He said that under the circumstances
he should think they would want to
get out of town.
Other members OF the Committee
Of One Hundred expressed disap-
prevail of the acquittal How ever, 1t
~ Hok n
jury.s verdict should not be regarded
as indicating that public sentiment
favors winking at bootleggers.
few members of the Committee
of One Hundred said they hadn't
been taking any interest in the case
and had not followed 1t.
Here are the interviews:
Calls Verdict An Outrage.
Samuel Connell-"It's an outrage.
The very idea of a mars being ac-
quilted on a proposition of that sort
when the evidence was SO clear that
even tha defense didn't deny its
truth, is outrageous. It's Just that
sort of thing that brings the courts
into disrepute and ridicule. OF course,
something Of the sort was perhaps
to have been expected at some stage
of the campaign against liquor law
violations, but hardly anything on SO
bold and brazen a scale. r don't
know what the jurymen had In mind
and can't imagine. but I should
think they would feel like hanging
their heads at this betrayal of their
trust and leaving town. II the liquor
people do this kind of thing. we will
tight on them that no liquor whatso-
ever can be imported into the State.
The only criticism l have against the
prohibition law is that 1t is so liberal
in permitting the importation of IL
Quor each month"
A. l. Veazie -"I was rather
startled. must admit, to read that
the jury In the Schultz case had re-
turned a verdict of not guilty espe-
cially in view of the evidence as pub
lished in the papers. However. as
lawyer, / should not be surprised at
any verdict a jury might bring in. 1t
has been my experience that juries
often will pay more attention to
minor technicalities than a Judge will
do. A jury gets an exaggerated view
OF the importance OF such technical
tiles which a Judge would hardly con-
slider at all. 1t Is quite possible that
such considerations influenced the
verdict OF the jury, though the
character of evidence in behalf of
Schultz and desire not to send him
to Jail quite likely had Il part in 1t
also. do not regard the jury's YER
dict as an indication that public senu-
ment is against strict enforcement OF
the prohibition law. 1t is rather one
OF the incidents likely to happen in
any campaign of law enforcement.
The attitude Of juries in general has
been proved by the fact that liquor
tried before other Juries in
a large number Of cases have resulted
in conviction
An Unfortunate Case.
Robert Livingstone consider 1t
that the appeal should
have been successful on the ground
OF a technically The evidence was
clear on the first trial that Schultx
violated the law. and his conviction
was proper. The present decision may
give encouragement to lawbreakers,
and it willsel am sure. not meet the
approval OF our citizens who wish
the law to be enforced without ref
erence to mere technicalities."
Fletcher Linn-"So far as I can
Judge. I would consider the verdict
in the Schultz Case pretty rank ono.
The fact that SO many men of promi-
hence testified In behalf of Schultz
may have influenced the Jury. Of
course. but It's pretty hard to UNDER
stand such q verdict in the light OF