Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1926-02-19
THE ALLEGED FABcE TRIAL.


There appeared IN the Times-Cres-
cent in its issue Of February l2lh an
article under the caption, "A Farce
Trial, = signed by the writer who had
not the manhood or womanhoOd to
sign their own name, but under the non
de plume OF "a Champion Of Law En-
forcement.n The Article which evil
IDENTIFY emanates from q p en- OF ignor-
ance would we're il not for the fact the
general public might be misled, be ig-
nored with the contempt that It justly
deserves.
In the beginning We might say tina
it is unfortunate for the general public
that the advent OF this farce trial
was not advertised SO that all could
enjoy il, since the general human ten
dency is toward the farcial, rather
than the tragic in life.
We gather from the article that a
jury sat in the trial of the case, that
the manner in which 1t was selected
and the evidence produced before it as
we'll as the punishment meted out by
the Court was without precedent. Like
all members OF the bar the wri er is
willing to learn, hence, we would like
the writer of the above mentioned arti-
Gle TO advise US what is the precedent
for selecting juries for the trial of
cases In Magistrates Courts, the man
ner of producing evidence before the
body and the netting out punishment
bs the Justice presiding at the trial.
Whether the trial referred TO was
conducted as provided by law, not be
ing present, we do not attempt TO pass
Judgment and would not had we been
present, thus subiecting ourselves to
contempt OF court, preferring to follow
some other procedure within the law
TO the end that justice might be done
in every partielar.
The Sheriff informs us that he per-
formed every duty required Of him by
law in serving warrants and summons,
and of this we entertain no doubt, in
view OF the splendid record he has
made in Office. The Sheriff has nothing
TO do with the conduct OF trial or the
procedure oil the Court and this at
least the ignorant critic should know
The Sheriff needs no defense by US
since his splendid record in office
speaks for itself and is recognized by
every intelligent person. In passing,
too,we might add that his record In Of
fee marks him as one OF the best Sheriffs
&llAc GOuutf has UEtu AOIluuhNt
to have and it is unfortunate for the
people that he cannot under the law
succeed himself.
Wequote the following from this let
ter: why is it that our States Attor-
ney is not on the job, as he should be,
and prosecute the perpetrators Of such
crimes, along with the men back OF the
scenes, who are primarily responsibility
- Ill
asked in ignorance, for how could the
States Attorney be present except by
accident at trial of which he had no
notice officially or otherwise
For the enlightenment OF the ques-
toner we might further advise that the
States Attorney who happens also to
be the writer of this article had no
knowledge of the accident, the inquest
held over the remains of the dead man,
nor any hearing of the evidence
against the perpetrator OF the deed,
nor of the trial of the latter on any
charge until after they were all over,
and if memory serves us correctly not
for a week or so afterwards. We could
say more as TO the States Attorney
being always on the job, but what's
the use 5? People who are intelligent
hnOH Jul ACCOA0 tOl lQClttl uuAl
and energy exercised in the perform
ance of the same. In this connection,
however, we might add hat il the
querulous viii read the case Of Kilgor
VS. The Evening Star Company, in IS
Nd. % he will learn that the duties
of the States Attorney do not extend
70 prosecuting before an officer hold
ing an inquest.
20 a.
scenes with so much power, we would
like to know them, so through the proper
legal channels we could put an end to
their nefarious work.
II the writer of the article in the
Times-Creseent places himself or her.
self in the better class and a law
abiding citizen" and honestly believes
in law enforcement as he or she would
have US believe in the conclusion of
their criticisms, they should have no.
tilted the proper officials, and not in
ignorance alter all is over criticise
them for not doing their duty (which
duty the writer Of said article appears
in ignorancel.
In conclusion, the writer who as ad-
vised above, is the States Attorney,
asks the writer of the article in the
@A@NN1 OAb@NSlP hAA0 uAAtk Go tA4db
methods were pursued throughout the
entire proceedings from the minute OF
the accident to the imposing OF the
sentence, that there were persons be-
hind the scenes, all Of which he claims
to have full knowledge, that il he or she
is sincere and honest, is of the better
class and ldlc-dbidiRg citizen, and an
honest champion of L0W Enforce
nlent' TO give us as States Attorney
his or her name that we might in the
proper performance of our duty sum
mon him or her before the Grand Jury
SO that be or she can testify and give
that body the evidence as 10 all the
circumstances in connection with the
killing of Arthur Thomas, all the facts
in connection with the inqu est, the al
legged trial OF the alleged perpetrator
of the deed as we'll as give that body
the names of those behind the scenes.
with so much power to make what
should have been proper legal pro-
ceedings become a farce, to the end
that justice may be done. If there
are persons behind the scenes who
bring about mistrials the public is en-
titled to know who they are that an
end may be put to their nefarious
work for once and all time. We are
ready to do our duty; now Champion
Law Enforcement Believer, do yours.