Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-08-04
TEXT OF GOVERNOR FULLER'S
DECISION ON SACCO AND VANZETT

By the Associated Press
BOSTON, Mass. August 4.-Gov.
Alvin r.. Fuller's decision in the
Sacco-Eanzetti case, after reviewing
the history of the trial, says:
This appeal, presented to me In
accordance with the provision in the
constitution of our commonwealth,
has been considered without intent on
my part to sustain the courts.
II realized at the outset that there
were many sober minded and con-
scientiOus men. and women who were
genuinely troubled about the guilt or
innocence of the accused and the fair
ness of their trial. 1t seemed to me
[ ought to attempt to set the minds
of such people at rest, if it could be
done. hut I realized that with all ]
could do personally to find out the
truth. some people might we'll in the
end doubt the correctness Of any cob
clusipn that ! or. in fact, any other
one mar might reach.
''Therefore, | believed that I could
best rea ssure these honest doubters
hv having a committee conduct an
investigation fairly independent of
mine, their report to be made to me
and to he Of help in reaching correct
conclusions.
Three Problems Involved.
az asked to serve on that committee
President Abbott Lawrence Lowell of
Harvard University, former Judge
Robert Grant, and President Samuel
w. Straton of Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. The public
owes these gentlemen its gratitude for
their high minded, unselfish service on
this sacreeable and extremely inn
portant problem.
"The court proceedings in this case
may he divided into two parts: First.
the trial before the jury with Judge
Thayer presiding; second, the hearings
on the succession of motions for new
trial which were addressed to the
Judge and passed upon by him.
the attacks on the proceedings and on
The motions for a new trial are, in
substance. that the judge was biased
and unable to give the motions fair
and impartial consideration.
'The inquiry that l have conducted
has had to do with the following ques-
tons: Was the jury trial fair? Were
the accused entitled to a new trial?
Are they guilty or not guilty? AS to
the first question, complaint has been
made that the defendants were pros
ecuted and convicted because they
were anarchists. AS matter of fact.
the issue of anarchy was brought in
by them as an explanation of their
suspicious conduct. Their counsel,
against the advice of Judge Thayer,
decided to attribute their actions and
+@ fao ~ fhnN
anarchists, suggesting that they were
armed to protect themselves, that they
were about to start out. at 10 o'clock
at night, to collect radical literature,
and that the reason they lied was to
save their friends.
Consulted Surviving Jurors.
81 have consulted with every
member of the jury now alive, ii
i'm. number. They considered the
judge fair; that he gave them no
indication of his own opinion or the
case. Affidavits have been presented
claiming that the judge was preJu-
diced. / see no evidence of preju-
dice in his conduct of the trial.
That he had an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the accused
after hearing the evidence is natural
and inevitable.
1.-The allegation has been made that
conditions in the courtroom were
pre- judicial to the accused. After
careful inquiry of the jury and
others. I find no evidence to support
this allegation. / find the jurors were
thoroughly honest men and that they
were reluctant to find those men
guilty, but were forced to do so by
the evidence. ! can see no warrant
for the assertion that the jury trial
was unfair.
"The charge of the judge was
satisfactory to the counsel for the
accused and no exceptions We're
taken to it. The Supreme Judicial
Court for the Commonwealth has
considered such of the more than
$50 exceptions taken during the
course of the trial as counsel Tor
| the accused chose to argue ana
overruled them ALL thus establish
ing that the proceedings were with
out legal flaw.
IT have read the record and exam
ined many witnesses and the Jurymen
to see from a layman's standpoint
whether the trial was fairly conducted
I am convinced that it was.
New Trial Held Unwarranted.
w discovered evidence was OF SUI
ficient merit to warrant a new trial.
After the verdict against those men,
their counsel filed and argued before
Judge Thayer seven distinct supple
mentary motions for new trial. SIN
of them on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence, all of which We're
denied. l have examined all OF these
motions and read the affidaVlts In sup
port of them to see whether they pre-
scented any valid reason for granting
the accused men new trial. l am
convinced that they do not and l am
further convinced that the presiding
Judge gave no evidence of bias in de.
nying them all and refusing a new
trial The Supreme Judicial Court for
the Commonwealth, which had before
it appeals on four of the motions ana
had the opportunity to read the same
ahidavits which were submitted TO
Judge Thayer. declined to sustain the
contentious of counsel for the accused.
In nv own Investigations on the queS-
ton of guilt. l have given these mo-
tons and their supporting atfidavits
and the witnesses every consideration.
II give no weight to the Madeiros
confession. 1t is popularity supposed
he confessed to committing this crime.
In his testimony to me he could not
recall the details or describe the neigh
borhood. lie Furthermore stated that
the Government had double-crossed
him and he proposes to double-cross
the Government. He feels that the
district attorneys office has treated
him unfairly, because his two confed-
crates who were associated with him
in the commission of the murder for
which he was convicted We're given
life sentences, whereas he was SEN
fenced to death. He confessed the
crime for which he was convicted. L