Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-09-29

jury. The testimony was taken and
| some argument was had as to instruc
tons. When Judge Hundley/- refused
a certain instruction that Mr.. Lancas
ter regarded as essential in the case
Mr.. Lancaster according to his pub.
lished statement felt that he could no
longer be Of service to the younger
Barrett. Before the latter was called
to trial, however, Mr.. Lancaster at
tempted to make q compromise, where
by the boy would be given milder
sentence than that Of death. Failing
In this, he withdrew from the case.
The boy then personally enter
Gu his plea Of guilty" af-
ter his rights to jury had been ex-
planned to him. From that time on,
he was without counsel and was sen
fenced to death.
The News Leader regarded such
proceedings as most unusual in Wiz
ginia but accepted Judge Hundley's
statement that he had no discretion
when the boy pleaded guilty. From
this the paper argued in repeated ar
tfcles. that the legal rights of the boy
had not been properly safeguarded,
owing to a misunderstanding between
counsel and court as to whether the
boy pleaded guilty by advice of his
lawyer or on his own account. In the
early articles little was said Of Judge
Humidity until August 80.
FROM EDITORIAL OF AUGUsT3o.
In an article published that day the
News Leader said editorially:
BY pleading guilty to murder in
the first degree, and by waving Jury
trial, the Negro signed his own death
warrant and gave the court no option
except to sentence him to the electric
chair.
Did the Negro know when he plead
Gu guilty that he abandoned the pre-
sumption of murder In the second de
gree?
Did the Negro know when he waiy
ed jury trial and pleaded guilty that.
the court had no discretion but must
sentence him to be electrocuted
How was the Negro to know when
ne had no counsel from the moment
he was arraigned?
If the Negro did not know, then how
can any one pretend that his lega,
rights were safeguarded?
ii his legal rights were not safeguardad
how can he be executed under laws
that demand Justice?
Much has been said in this case of
the angry temper OF the crowd, and It
has been suggested that IL the Negroes
mad not been given n speedy trial they
would have been lynched We believe
In speedy trial under any circum-
stances, and especially when there is
danger OIL violence. But a speedy trial
must be a just trial, otherwise the sen
tence imposed after such q trial diff
fers only from the sentence that might
De imposed by mob In that it is utter
cd In q court roomi
But, 1t Is argued this Is a Negro n
bad, dangerous Negro. What then? The
very fact that he is Negro, unrepre-
ed In courtroom!
But 1t Is argued, this Is Negro a
bad, dangerous Negro. What then? The
very fact that he Is Negro, unrepre
sented, >friendless, penniless and ignor
ant, makes 1t all the more important
that his guilt be established in a court
OF Justice, with every possible safe
guard thrown about hia righta.
FROM EDITORIAL OF AUGUST 81.
On the following DAY, having ascer-
tanned that Judge Hundley had g. dis
erection OF which he had not ayailed
himself, THE News Leader said:
This law Is not mandatory. A jus
tice can still send a child under Is to
the grand jury, which in turn can in
dict A court Of record may try a Jury
may convict and court may sentence
10 imprisonment in the penitentiary
or to legal execution provided only
that the child Is over IL years Of aga.
But we are not discussing mandatory
, laws. We are discussing a discretion
which Judge Hundley states he did
not possess--but q discretion which.
IN actual fact Is less open to dispute
than the right Of court to sentence
prisoner to death without a Jury
trial
We do not charge Judge Hundley
with any intentional mistatement of
MS powers. On the contrary, we are
certain that he either had forgotten
the law we have cited or else had new
or had his attention directed to it. And
this Is not all unlikely or necessarily
discreditaDle when we remember that
the act Is recent and bears a lengthy
title which, at glance, would not in
! d1cate that 1t works a very important
reform In judicial procedure.
But the fact remains that the
court had the discretion, could have
used 1t and consequently can no long
er take the position that the sentence
OF this Negro boy to death was unavoid
able.
FROM EDITORIAL OF SEPT. II.
In answer to this article, A. D. Wat
kins, acting attorney for the COM
monWealth, wrote an extended expla
nation to The News Leader. An an
swer to this was published by The
News Leader on September II, 1917,
and contained the following
paragraph:
Let us likewise set Mr.. Watkins
straight as to the remarks made by
us which he regards as "derogatory
OF the court in this trial" Much has