The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-04-06
SaccO, Vanzetti to Die
Rules State Court

Continued from Page O1te)
Sacco and Vanzetti as one way of
Kidding themselves of two "reds."
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Van
zetti were arrested on May 8, 1920,
nearly seven years ago. Their con-
wction a year later elected an inter
national working class protest which
prevented their electrocution until
now. Death in the electric chair is
the only possible penalty under the
Massachusetts law for the crime on
which Sacco and Vanzetti were franz
ed.
Upon their arrest these two WORK
ers, who were active in the New
England radical movement, astemed
that they were part Of the govern
ment's "catch" in the general round
up of reds then in progress under
Attorney General Palmer. Not until
days later did they learn TINT they
were being prepared for a speedy in
dictment on a capital charge. Their
trial, at Dedham, Mass, attracted
worldwide attention. 1t was conduc-
ted in an atmosphere of hatred and
prejudice against foreigners and radi-
Gals.
Flimsy Evidence Produced.
The accusation against them speci-
fically was that they had taken part
in a payroll robbery at South Brain
tree on April 10, in which two of the
payroll guards were killed. The only
so-called direct evidence against Sac
co and Vanzetti were number of
''identifications." These were palpably
weak and lying, but they were sup
ported by indirect evidence-to the
effect that upon their arrest and sub
sequently the prisoners showed "con-
seriousness of guilt" The jury re-
fused to accept the explanation that
the guilt of which tl.ey were consci-
GUS was that of being reds, the
"crime" Of which they thought them
selves accused.
Motions For New Trials.
The first motion for a retrial argu-
ed in October, 1921 was based on
the claim that the verdict was not in
accord with the evidence. 1t was
denied.
The second motion for a new triaI
was based on testimony of one named
Louis Pelzer. Prior to the trial, ac-
cording to the defense's affidavits
Pelzer said he witnessed the shooting
of the paymaster and his guard but
that he was too far away to take il
the exact situation. On the witness
stand, however, he made positive
Identification of Sacco as one of The
bandits. Four months later he signed
an affidavit saying that his origina
statement was true, and that the ties
timony he gave at the trial was un
true and that he gave it because HI
was coerced by the district attorney
This motion was also denied.
The defense, in it's third motion TO
a new trial produced affidavits t.
show that Charles +. Goodridge, on
of the prosecutions important wit
nesses, had a criminal record in sew
eral states.
Witnesses COerced.
The fourth motion for re-trial wa
concerned with the testimony Of Lol
Il. Andrews. According to affidavit
submitted by the defense, Mrs. An
drews was interviewed by them fiv
months before the trial. She said sh
did not see Saceo, and her description
Of the man she saw was not that 0
Sacco, according to the defense. IN
is not the man." she said when show
i! photographs of Sacco. Next day sh
made a positive Identification of Sac
co at the trial.
In an affidavit sworn by Mrs. An
drews nine months after the tris
she declared that her original state
ment before trial was true, and tina
her trial testimony was untrue an
had been given unedr the coercio
and intimidation ON the district al
torney's office.
The fifth motion for new tris
was concerned with the exceeding
important gun-and-bulaet testimon,
The commonwealth held, that the bu