The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1917-11-15

der which the indictment was drawn.
II never even contemplated being
disloyal," was one of his statements.
He declared further that he had never
advised anyone to resist the draft,
although he believed the draft act un-
constitutional, and added that he has
a son who has been drafted for SER
vice, but has not yet been called. He
contradicted witnesses for the gov =
ernment, one Of whom, Mr.. MegginS,
now in the draft army, testified that
after he had been drawn the defend
and told him that the draft law
wasn't worth d, and that he
would not have to CO." and Mr. b. II.
Williams, who stated that he had
heard the defendant say the draft
act was no good" Mr.. Beard said
he did not know Meggins and
couldn't recall that he had ever seen
him. Another statement made by Mr..
c. E. Williamson, of Abbeville, was
not dwelt on in the direct examina-
ton because Judge Johnson had sta
ted the witness reply to a question
would be subject to be ruled out, but
the answer was made in the hear
ing of the jury. Mr.. Williamson tes-
titled that he heard the defendant
say: 81 am not afraid of this d.
government and nothing in it."
Why Editorial Was Written.
Mr.. Boards object, as he stated,
for writing the editorial was brought
out on cross-examination by District
Attorney Thurmond. The witness
said that he did not agree with the
Wilson administration in its conduct
of the war and he had so expressed
himself editorially. In other words,
what he had declared by way of criti-
cism was an opinion which he be-
lieved he had the right to express in
a country of free speech and with a
free press. He referred to the ma
jority who voted for war, he said,
when he dubbed the members of Con-
gress as "fools traitors, towards and
Tories" and did not have any specific
proof. 1t was general opinion ex-
pressed by the editorial "we". He
was using his paper to "enlighten the
people of America" on the war sit
uation.
Asked about his criticism of Presi-
dent Wilson, the defendant replied
that he had written against the Pres
ident because he "did not like his
acts as a civil executive" The wit
ness went further and stated that he
had stated nothing in the editorial at
issue which he would care now to
change.
His War Sympathies.
Mr.. Beard, through further cross
examination, shed some light on his
war sympathies in the present world
conflict. He told the district attorney
that he "was with Germany as
against Great Britain and with
France as against Germany" But
since the United States has entered
the war he is for the United States.
A supplement to The Scimitar con-
oii al IiNlS III Vi HlIltT-
lea was introduced in evidence, but it
was not established, because it was
not dated, whether this expression of
patriotism was made before or after
the editorial, "The Great Fizzler."
Witnesses for Defense.
Mr.. ]. L. Perrin, clerk of court,
and Mr.. j. c. Chalmers, treasurer, of
Abbeville county, respectively, were
called as the principal witness for the
defense to testify as to Mr.. Boards
character. Mr.. Perrin, however, was
not permitted to give his opinion, af-
ter having said that he could testify
as to the defendants general reputa-
ton. Mr.. Chalmers states unequivo-
cally that he believed Mr.. Beard was
loyal to the government when he
wrote the editorial and that he was
still loyal.
DIR. G. C. Gambrell, who, with