Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-11-08

/
| him to believe that there has been such
| connection
ECHOES HEARD FROM
CASES IN OTHER STATES.
It was brought out by both Mr.. Simms
and Mr.. Slack that in the proceedings in
Ohio and Illinois Federal courts to re-
move defendants residing in those States
| they have met several times with the
suggestion on the part of the various at
torneys who instituted injunction pro-
ceedings to prevent the removals to In
| diana that slack and Simms are taking
the initiative in this matter and are act
ing outside the view Of the Department
| Of Justice"
1t was developed that Mr.. Slack and
Mf. Slmms have been unable to remove a
| single one of the defendants outside Of
me state, This and the fact that Mr.
| S4mms resigned just a month before the
tIlaI was called were given by Mr. Slack
in his formal motion for continuance as
me reasons for the Governments re-
quest for a delay.
SLACK FOLLOWS
SIuMS ON STAND.
Mr.. Slack. who was called TO the
witness stand after Mr.. Simms had given
complete review of his CORRESPONDENCE
with the Attorney General relative TO the
instructions to exclude the Injunction
ana contempt proceedings evidence from
Lhe present case, declared that the de-
Iehse IN some Of the removal cases had
I gone so far as to state in briefs that II
was 'Simms and Slack. and not the Gov
eminent at all that was proceeding with
the prosecution.
BY statements OF his own and cues
| tiOuing Of Mr. Simms. Mr. SLACK and
Mr.. Van Nuys the court revealed for the
nrst time much Of what took place in the
conference which Mr.. Palmer attended
In the courts private Office on tie aft
ernoon Of Dec S, 1919 1t was I'm this
conference, the court said. that the att
torney general infers the understanding
to exclude the evidence In question was
made
The three attorneys and the court en-
phaticaly denied that any such under
standing was had and IL was broubht
out by subsequent facts, such as the
attorney generals approval of the In.
dictment late I'm the spring, when Mr..
Shnms took it TO Washin gton, that there
was no such understanding and that no
one Of tie Government attorneys here
had any knowledge that such was 10
he considered the understanding until
Oct. 1, when Mr.. slmms received Mr.
falmer's letter of instruction, written on
Sept 20
GO FULLY INTO THE
MATTER OF CONFERENCE
Besides Mr.. Palmer Judge Anderson
Mr.. Van Nuys, Mr.. Slack and Mr.. SImns.
this conference was attended by Mr.. Ames
and Henry Mitchell, then Mr.. Ames' first
assistant. Discussing what took place
the court and Mr. Simms made It plain
that when Mr.. Palmer indicated that he
thought the miners should not be pun
ished twice for their strike Judge An
dersOn asked him:
DO you mean TO wipe the slate clean ?"
Mr.. Palmer, It was indicated. gave an
answer which was construed to mean that
such was bis view.
The court said he then said:
Il might accept & belated compliance
with my order 20 end the strike (Judge
Anderson insisted that his order was
openly flouted for thirty days before the
strike finally came to an end. but this
criminal prosecution viii have to 90 on
Didn't I tell him" the court said that
l never yet had made fish out Of one
and flesh out of another and that I was
not going to sit up here and send boot
| leggers and postofice embezzlers to Jau
and then let this fragrant violation OF the
/ law go by unHoticed :"
/ Mr.. Slack answered that was what the
/ court said
/ When Mr.. Ames, attempting to defend
Mr.. Palmer's attitude, read from a re
port Of testimony Of the attorney gen
eral before the congressional committee
/ Investigating the coal strike in which
/ the attorney general was quoted as say
| ing that the government chose TO fight
] the mine strike by civil injunction pro
ceedings rather tnan criminal action and
/ that he thought he ought to stand on
( that, the court inquired
"Do you understand that the Attorney
( General has the right to issue pardons
in advance?"
/ Mr.. Ames replied that he understood
( that the Attorney General has the right
not to prosecute miners for the strike.
/ AMEs DOESN'T WANT
/ TO ARGUE THE POINT.
/ Judge Anderson said he thought that
needed arguing and Mr. Ames said he
/ had no intention of arguing the point.
'Weu, I'd like to find out If the attor-
ney general has complete authority over
this court" replied the judge. II can't
! find It out too quickly"
Mr.. Anes said that personally he would
regret very much to see the miners prose
cuted for their striking
as it the position of the attorney gen
eral that he can give an immunity bath IN
criminal prosecution of this kind p
the court asked.
Mr.. Ames said he believes It Is the
position Of the attorney general that be
has the right to make choice Of rem
edies which the government shall seek in
times Of emergency.
well, I'm going to End out II I'm
! merely a puppet TO be handled by the
pulling Of strings at Washington" the
court observed, and said that the attor-
ney generals action might be considered
parallel to the action of n general en-.
gagged in an important battle who agreed
with the opposing general that certain
important divisions should be Withdrawn
and the enemy permitted to win.
Can a general do thatf" the court
inquired "He may, but he will be
court-martialed for it."
Earlier the court had observed upon
hearing the statements of the local at
torneys about correspondence with Mr.
Palmer:
Personal government; not government
by law, but personal government"
Later he remarked that he was going
10 see If the entire Government was cen.