Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1924-08-15

chemical, and textile industries, prae-
tically prewar working hours are
again in force"
not be aware of the final issue which
resulted in his nomination.
So far as press reports indicate Mr.
Davis entertained no objection to the
honor that was conferred upon him.
In his speech of acceptance we
learned for the first time that the
Republicans had made a miserable
botch of running the government. We
had our suspicious beforehand, but
he verified them.
Butch" Crowley, Joliet beer-maker,
who began six months sentence
March / for violation of the Volstead
amendment through which he is said
IN have made q nsillsa<.-l a half
before running afoul of the law, was
released from custody after COM
pleting five months of his sentence.
Butch" says he will forsake the
beer business and enter the real es-
tate and oil game.
Terry Druggan, former rival of
Crowley's will begin years SEN
tence next month. He, too, is credit
ed with making a million in beer
since prohibition went into effect.
Verify, prohibition is an astonishing
success. Who would not spend
year In Jail for million dollars,
particularly if conscience is not too
acute?
Jury trials in Magistrate James
court are becoming dangerous to Of
tenders. A few days ago a woman
was fined on charge of keeping a
disorderly house. The woman was
black and the jury was white. The
evidence was circumstantial and rest
ed upon the testimony of neighbor
who could tell nothing more than his
suspicious. The jury deliberated
about five minutes and rendered a
verdict of guilty
Juries have been severely criticised
of late because they are believed to
be too lenient with offenders. 1t
appears that a reaction is coming,
and when it comes we may expect
jury to go to the opposite extreme
and give the benefit of all doubt to
the state. The alleged offenders will
be convicted upon the himsiest kind
of evidence.
1t will not be proper for a jury to
exhibit either wisdom or justice in Its
decisions. That would be establish
ing a new precedent.
A few days ago one man was re-
leased and another given minimum
fine for an assault upon the person OF
a Champaign laborer. Testimony on
the defense side indicated that the
assault was provoked by an unbecom-
ing title hurled at one of the defends
ants by the plaintiff.
The defendant confessed that he
had knocked the plaintiff down twice,
but expressed the belief that he was
justified.
The plaintiff charged assault with
deadly weapon, the same being
monkey wrench, or some other kind
of a wrench. The plaintiff also ex-
hibited an inch and a quarter cut over
his left eye and ugly bruises about
the face as evidence of the attack.
A physician testified that he had
taken two stitches in the wound, but
could not say whether a weapon had
been used in the fight.
The defendants both testified that
the assailant used only his fist, ami
were corroborated by two other wit
nesses. The plaintiff and his wife,
however, declared that he had been
struck with a wrench. Somebody
deliberately perjured his testimony,
but neither attorney nor the court
could determine which was guilty
the plaintiff or the defendants. Con-
sequently the judge favored the de-
PENDANTS. The question is-"What
would a jury have done ?"