The Appeal. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. ;) 1889-19??, 1923-03-03
REMOVES TRIAL
OF FARMERS FROM
ARKANSAS COURTS
Fate of Twelve Sentenced to
Death Hangs on Review
of Case
LITIGATION COST IS $4,000
Supreme Court Decision Great
Victory for Scipio Jones,
Morefield Storey

NOAChClu OCOIcy
NEW YORK, March 2-The five
Arkansas poems, condemned to death
by Arkansas courts in connection
with the riots of 1918, whose cases
the National Association for the Ad-
vanccment of Colored People has
fought Through five courts includ-
ing the Arkansas Supreme Court,
will not be executed, according to a
decision rendered by the highest tri-
bunal Of the land, setting aside the
conviction Of these men. The Su-
preme Courts decision takes the
cases Of the condemned colored farm
ers out of the jurisdiction of the
State Of Arkansas and requires the
United States District Court to ex-
anime into the attempt to railroad
these men to death.
PeOnage in Limelight.
The Arkansas cases constitute the
center of a fight being made to
bring the facts Of peonage in the cot
ton-raising sections of the United
States to light, and to bring federal
pressure to abolish that evil. In the
legal battle for defense of these men
the National Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People has
raised $14,572.42 and already spent
SD, ,115.74, besides thousands of dol
lars raised and spent by the colored
people Of Arkansas who were vitally
interested in the fate of their COM
lrades,Th victory before the Sn-
preme Court is due to the courage
GUS and untiring labors of Scipio A.
Jones, colored attorney of Little
Rock, and to Moorfeld Storey,
President of the N. A. A. C. P. who
appeared before the Supreme Court
in Washington on January 8, 1923,
to argue the cases.
- The Arkansas case originated in
the riot of 1919, when it was asserted
that the colored farmers in and near
Phillips County, Arkansas, had con-
spired to massacre the whites" A
personal investigation of the riot
was made by Walter F. White, who
was sent to Arkansas by the N. A. A.
c., disclosed that far from planning
a massacre" the colored farmers
had been organized to employ law
yer to compel settlement from their
landlords who were holding their
tenants in a state of peonage or debt
slavery.
Conspiracy Charged.
Duling the riots, some $50 inno-
cent colored people, men, women
and children, were hunted and shot
down in the Arkansas cane brakes,
posses of white men coming from
Mississippi and Tennessee TO join in
the hunt. The colored men arrest
ed were beaten and tortured to make
them testify, 81 were sentenced to
long prison terms and twelve were
sentenced to death. The cases of all
the men sentenced to death hinge up
on the the cases of the five whose
convictions have been reversed by
the United States Supreme Court.
In the brief filed before the Su-
preme Court by Mr.. Storey, it is
charged that the courts of Arkan-
sas, including the Kansas Supreme
Court, the newspapers, leading
white citizens and clubs, conspired or
connived at q conspiracy to railroad
these colored farmer to DEATH.
VI Decision Recites Facts.
The Supreme Courts decision
According to the afidavits of two
white men and the colored witnesses
on whose testimony the petitioners
were convicted, produced by the pc
titioners since the last decision of the
Supreme Court hereafter mentioned,
the Committee made good their
promise by calling colored witnesses
and having them whipped and tor
tured until they would say what they
wanted, among them being the two
relied on to prove the petitioners
guilt. However that may be, a
grand jury Of white men was or
ganized ON October 9th, with one Of
the Committee Of Seven, and it is al
lodged, with many Of those organ
lied to fight the blacks, upon it, and
on the morning Of the 29th the indict-
ment was returned. On November
3rd, the petitioners were brought in
to Court, informed that a certain
lawyer was appointed their counsel
and were placed on trial before a
white blacks being systemati-
cally excluded from both grand and
petit juries. The Court was crowded
with a throng that threatened the
most dangerous consequences to any
one interfering with the desired re-
suit. The counsel did not venture to
demand delay or a chang of venue,
to challenge juryman or to ask for
separate trials. He had h.isno pre-
liminary consultation with the ac-
cused, called no witnesses for the
defence, although they could have
been produced, and did not put the
defendants on the stand. The trial
lasted aboutthree-q quarters OF an
hour and IN less than FIVE minutes
the jury brought in verdict Of guilty
of murder in the first degree. Ac-
(contInusd on Fourth Psss)