Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-09-16

ooggT1eHa aR1A. 1y hi IA
people. and Is a harts,rrn I,ntr1 IN ME
Chicago. MsEEa19se & ST. FEEnl rail-
way EyEten- and ns easily RcrsRsislts
by railroad 10 am1n-e WIN nEsfras ia
come mere. There ars gv-nau R1rpnE
the farmers Of fkas EasErty. Rs b1naEfs
from the Assessors rsaIl-ns, I.l96 RuarA
mobilee- and IN the a~tleintnE rpurT
OF Martin county s.afk EuInmnhifss.
and otcef COUNTLESS 10y funfradE Of
miles have equally rs lsnE and 1hss
all appear TO >ce i'm Enoa running Dr.
der n courthouse. II which Tt,e
trial was held rs one OF 1he fnest and
modern In ting xnr7t nnrEhwsEt.
a Pride met ontv TO ,gslEsnn cpunry-
hWt to the state Of MrnnssnA Re
Secondly u7fne II raa
before a Judge zinc lad rersnls,y
refused TO tv 4 similar camEFIrscr
caAe admitting 4 pretwohce n 1he
for exercise of proper fairness
and ~6tgpssEion- When II hap
Eened TO tie Tprnley and GaEsssr
Tno rsrs Al the bar, knEsTsr- 1he
eminent fErsft decided that hh8
pretHdtce has shated- and s7ceess-
fully reststet tse efforts of the de-
Tense TO him
Judge Denies Adtutnx Prejudice
The truth is that this judge never
had a conspiracy case OF a like char
any other county at any time, nor did
this Judge at any time or place, or to
any person Or persons. admit ans
prejudice against these defendants or
any person or persons charged with
conspiracy, and therefore this Judge
did not, nor has he ever had an OPP
p%ortunity to. refuse to try to hear such
a case at any time.
mo effort was made to 'oust' this
court from presiding in the case,
neither was it at any time intimated
that a change of place of trial or a
different judge was desired.
A very short and simple ahhdavit.
that any attorney of ordinary ability
could easily draW and file, alleging
prejudice on the part Of the court,
would have been suf1cient I o GUST
this judge, and another Judge would
presided in the case. No such
affidavit was ever made or filed 81
offered for fling at amp time.
"'Third-Although charged with
~NA 0b~S~uVo S0A(AAAkSA L N-
undermine loyalty, neither Town
ley nor Gilbert was permitted to
Introduce speeches calling upon
people to support the war, nor
were they permitted to chow their
various patriotic activities nor to
call witnesses willing to testify to
their loyalty to the government
and to the war purposes of
America
-Four Townley Speeches Received.
-Four different speeches made by
defendant Townley were admitted IN
evidence In their entirety. and excerpts
from other speeches made by him and
Gilbert were admitted. These full
speeches were taken in shorthand at
tn time they were delivered, and were
read to the jury in full and made 4
part of the record in this case, and no
objections or claim was made that the
st~enographic reports were not accur-
ate as read, and whenever my collec-
ton was taken up for the Red Cross
or any other war purpose at any Of
these meetings, the amount Of such
collection was given. For instance, at
New Ulm. where there was a gather
Ing of 1000 people. as claimed by the
defendants, the collection amounted to
$3.50. At Cambridge. where there
were 1900 people as claimed by de-.
ss0N '"e eon TO
80.
These defendants were not indict-
60 n tried for consptring to make
speeches. but were indicted and
tried for conspiring to make disIoyal
speeches.. II is not presumed that q
criminal OF any degree will be con.
tinuously engaged in committing
crimes; nor was the ctnarge against
9 defendants that they. or either