The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-09-09
Peoples Forum
LANCASTER DIS
AGREES WITH NEIGHBORS

Editor virginian:
Sir,--Let the twenty-six citizens Of
Charlotte county who loved and re-
spected the late Mr.. w. T. Roach and
myself reason together and allow me
to ask few questions. l don't, nor
can 1. gainsay one word of what you
have said except that you are mistak-
en- Ii you think Aubrey Barrett was
represented by any lawyer on his trial
at Charlotte G. H.. excepting this al
so. that | have never written nor
said one word about Albert Barret.
being under average intelligence. But
in this connection / must say that /
have heard difference of opinion Elk
pressed and must also say that after
l drafted a petition for Communication
in Aubrey's case, which / proposed
TO send to Charlotte county and en-
deavor to have the citizens there sign.
submitted II to my friend, ex-Judge
A. ID. Watkins, and asked him to ad-
wise with me concerning same (and
IN it was nothing of the bows iEnor~
ance or intelligenee). Judge Wat
kina. who prosecuted the Barretts.
pronounced 1t too strong for the peo-
pie to sign and he wrote or dictated
the petition which / did send, and In
il he wrote that the boy was not of
average intelligence and / fathered
that petition and that assertion in the
petition to the exent of using 1t and
never heard his intelligence or iacK
of. intelligence questioned until by
Mr. Lee Smell, although / believe now
Judge Watkins had information or
good reasons to believe that the as
sertion was true.
II anyone was duped or imposed
upon by Aubrey as to his ignorance IL
was Judge Watkins. My recollection
is and of which l am very positive
that the evidence was that Aubrey
Barrett picked up off of the ground
$1.5S, watch and knife, the prop
erty of Mr.. Roach. and when arrested
had spent the money and nothing was
said about the knife.
Albert and Aubrey potn had said
the watch was given by Aubrey tc
Albert when they were about five
miles from home the day after the
killing. and that Aubrey spent the
money. ! cannot think that the TWEEN
ty-six signers of the citizens of Bar
rett's case which appeared in The
Virginian of the 9Th inst. could have
attended the trial.
/ Is it exactly fair or right in you
gentlemen to say that Mr.. Lancaster
has misled anyone. or that his ar.
Iticle or statements have been misIead-
| ing or false? Is it fair for you to use
L
twelve-year Barrett girl told Mr.
Smell when the girl did not testify al
all? Is ii making fair impression
on the public for to speak of severa
different larcenies of which Albert
and Aubrey Barrett may have perpe
/ trated upon Mr.. Roach in discussing
! this case and telling who helped tc
trace up and find out the facts in re-
/ gard thereto, and of the several com.
! promises, forgivings, etc. when none
I of these facts were in evidence? Is II
| fair to try to prejudice this case b.
! the refusal of Aloert's wife to give
/ none OF this was brought out in evi
dence?
4 No doubt, gentlemen, that you or
I would have acted as Mr.. Roach did
after the wheat had been stolen, prov
en- to be stolen and admitted to have
1 been stolen, If you or | had under
taken TO watch or hold the guilty
parties until a warrant could be OBJ
tanned for their arrest We doubtless
would have pursued them and re.
strained them wher~we had no right
so to do without a warrant; neverthe-
less this does not make 1t legal OF
or mistake mitigate the offense? Doe,
I not his aiding his father when hi
was in peril and his age mitigate thu
crime7
/ Yours very respectfully,
w. L. LANCASTER.
| Farmville, Va, Sept. T.