Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-06-25
GRAND JURY's REPORT
IS IN SCATH|NC TERMS
M1hces No Words In It's Character
ization of Vice Conditions
in City.
FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE
Supplement- Says Lcnahnn Is to
Blame for Mutilation OF Evidence.
Recommends Pardon for Jacobs in
Recognition OF His Aid.

Blame for Mutilation OF Evidence.
Recommends Pardon for Jacobs in
Recognition OF His Aid.
In connection with it's signed report
the grand jury yesterday afternoon
rendered it's decision in regard to the
mutilation Of the Lcnahan evidence,
and directly accused L. J. Lenahan Of
having inserted the handwriting in .he
evidence which had been out of tho
custody OF the clerk of the court for
come time. The statement was that
after Investigating the matter thor
ouShly the members were of the opin-
ION that the new writing" in the cal
endar book was In the handwriting of
Z. j. Lenahan.
In another appendix to the report
the grand jury recommended that the
Governor be petitioncd to remit the
jail sentence which had been imposed
on Ben jacobs. who was recently con-
Sictedtn the Hustings Ccurt for "A vio-
lation of the prohibition law. The
members said that Jacobs had been Of
invaluable service to them. and in view
Of his promise to reform they thought
tina; he should be given this chance
Full. TEXT OF SIGNED
REPORT OF GRAND JURY
The full tex, Of the grand Jury's re-
port follows:
lion. u. G. Richardson, Judge OF the
Hastings Cour, of the City Of
lNchmond:
Sir,-The special grand jury sum-
lnoned by you 10 take under consider
alton matters concerning the efficiency
of the police force of this city. and
certain other matters. bcgs TO make
report as follows:
The grand jury met on Monday. June
s. at IL a. NJ, and after being sworn
and charged. took up at once the mat
tiers referred 10 them. They have met
since almost daily and on some days
have had morning and afternoon ses-
sions Til this the fourth week OF their
Investigations.
We beg to say that in all matters
hereinafter referred TO we have acted
in purely ,npcrsonal manner. Many
indeed. most-of the principals and
witnesses were previously unknown TO
the members of the jury, either by sight
or name. Scores Of witnesses have
been examined. Some OF them repeat ed
mere rumorg, others presented testi-
mony which did not stand conflrma-
ton: from many VIC secured subs.an
t!al evidence supported by subsequent
witnesses.
FINDINGS ARE BASED ON
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Our findings are based only on tho
aforementioned class OF testimony.
Numerous anonymous letters and phone
messages were received One usually
throws such letters into a waste-b basket
and turns a deaf ear to such inforners.
In this Investigation, however. We
have given due consideration TO all
such. but conJdered none as testimony.
Anonymous letter writers. good citizcns
who wink at law violations and tim!d
Jurors are aiding and abett!ng these
lawbrcakers.
There IS no greater fallacy than to
suppose or suspect that every police
man is an evildoer There arc over
200 men on the force. most OF whom
we believe are men good and true.
The finger OF accusation has been
pointed at but few.
Most OF these cases have grown out
OF violations OF laws regarding The
transportation or selling OF liquor
gambling and intox!cat!on.
REVIEWS HISTORY or
LIQUOR LEGISLAT:cS
The State OF Virginia has, from it's
earliest history. legisated on these
subjects. The first General Assembly
of Virginia tthc first on this contincnD
convened at jamestown In 1919. enact ed
laws and penalties OH these matters.
Such laws, modified to suit the chang
ing times. have been lin effect ever
since. Under State authority, the
courts have always had the authority
and power to grant or not to grant
license to sell liquor and to punish
those who violate its mandates.
The evils Of the traffic in liquor were
apparent more than 100 years ago. and
movement was started to influence
public opinion on the question. The
war of lS6l-5 caused halt in those
endeavors. but long since the subject
was again taken up and public opinion
asserted itself. In n series of years
nearly every county of the State voted
against the liquor license within it's
boundaries. At length, the General
Assembly OF Virginia enacted bill
submitting the matter to the electorate
of the State. The people themselves
in their sovereign right voted, in 1914,
by majority of over 10000, to abolish
the sale from the State, to take effect
November l, 1916.
The State, in it's sovereign capacity,
has spoken, through the General AS
sembly and through the electorate. Its
word is. there shall be no more grant
ing OF licenses for the sale of liquor.
PERSONAL LIBERTY DOES
NOT EXTEND TO GAMBLING
The State of Virginia has, from enc
generation 10 another. forbidden gam
bling. No license exists in the State:
the penalties are on the statute books.
On these matters personal liberties
do not exist and never did. 1t is the
duty Of all good citizens to uphold
the law; 1t is the duty OF all state
officers to enforce an observance on all
who resist Believing the foundation
of cnfort cmcnt lies in an efficient and
interrupted police force, we have con-
Quoted our Investigations more par
ticuarly along that line.