The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-10-31
TOTAL UNFITNESS
OF LEIBOWTTZ CITED
FOR APPEAL CASE
New York Criminal Lawyer Never Before Handled
Appeal Case in U. S. Court-Jealousy Against
Fraenkel, Pollak Shown

that these errors would not be
passed upon-and they were not
passed upon.
Nowhere in the speech of Mr..
Chamlee over the radio, nowhere in
the columns of the Amsterdam
News, nowhere in the speeches Of
Mr.. Leibowitz, does one find criti-
cism of Judge Callahan or Attorney
General Knight, or of the Supreme
Court of Alabama for these actions;
the searchlight of criticism is
shifted from where 1t belongs to
the I. L. D. and to Mr. Brodsky
and Mr.. Fraenkel, conveniently
ignoring their own role in the
preparation and conduct Of the APP
peal.
Is it not a fair inference from
the foregoing to conclude that the
actions of Messrs. Leibowitz and
Chamlee constitute an attempted
whitewash of the Alabama courts
and authorities, and are not the &C
lions of men whose chief concern is
the interest of the defendants,
which they so vociferously profess?
Permit me to comment further
on the good faith of Messrs. Lei
bowitz and Chamlee. In collect
telegram to me dated October %,
1884, which is quoted in the AM
sterdam News of October az, 1884,
Mr.. Chanlee says: II see no need
to confer with you or the I. L. D.
never approved of your
tactics"
For three and one half years I
worked together with Mr.. Chamlee
on the Scottsboro case, and never
did hear from him by word of
mouth or pen disapproval of tao
tics of the I. L. D. or of myself,
except as to one question, and that
is that he felt that the /. L. D. had
made an error in retaining Mr..
Leibowitz as q trial lawyer and
made a bigger error in keeping him
after the first trial before Judge
Horton upon the return from
which trial Mr.. Samuel S. Leibowitz
made that stupidity brilliant" re-
mark about lantern jawed morons
on the Alabama jury.
I wonder whether Mr. Chamlee
approved Of LID. tactics on Au-
gust "a, 1888, when he wrote me a
letter under that date referring to
the cases and to the job that re-
manned to be done in connection
herewith; the second paragraph of
that letter reads as follows: 1.-THE
I. L. D. is the only institution in
the world which is able to carry
this load and deliver it,"
I wonder also when it was that
Mr.. Leibowitz came to the con-
clusion that I. L. D. propaganda
was hurtful to the cause of the
Scottsboro boys. Was it during the
year and a half that he worked
under a retainer of the Interna-
tional Labor Defense without-let
me state frankly-payment of serv-
ices, bullet me state equally
frankly-payment of all disburse-
ments and expenses, during which
time and time again, at mass
meetings held underILD. auspices
he said: IF it had not been for the
LID. these defendants would have
long since been dead" I heard him
utter these same sentiments in the
court room in Decatur before Judge
Horton.
At st. Nicholas Arena upon his
return from Decatur he stood on
the platform when the thousands
there assembled rose to render an
ovation to Ruby Bates, the heroic
southern mill worker who had come
back from a southern court room
where she had made history, and
he waved a red tie which he wore
for the occasion, and where later
on that evening he paid tribute tc
the struggle waged by the I. L. D.
for the unconditional release of the
Scottsboro boys.
When was it that Mr.. Samuel s.
Leibowitz decided that the LID
propaganda was hurting the Scots
boro boys? I'll tell you when. Wher