Evening star., 1935-05-03

Is and 16, the inference 10 sought
to be sustained by piecemeal quota
tions from my testimony. and by
drawing unreasonable inferencea
therefr0m, that my administration
has been lax, inefficient and In
effective in gambling cases. (PP.
%, "a, 25.)
For example, the heading Of para
graph IL is that only three gambling
convictions were obtained out of "A
cases. This overlooks my testimony
that of the "A cases. the grand jury
ignored %, and it overlooks that there
were 5 pleas Of guilty: 1t also over
looks the fact that at the time ]
testified the remaining cases had not
been tried because of the fact that
the indictments in great number Of
them had then only recently been
returned.
The assertion is made that there are
untried gambling cases as much as
one year old, and that such unrea-
sonable delay between indictment and
trial will not break up commercialized
gambling The fact is that on March
/, 1884, there was one gambling case
pending. returned that day Il testified
on February 10, l935). On March 81,
1884. the second gambling indictment
during my terms of ONCE was re-
turned. which cases were then the
only pending gambling indictments.
No other indictments we're returned
during the month of March. 1884.
In April. 1894, nine indictments were
returned. In May. 1884, two indict-
ments were returned. During the
month of June, 1884, three indictments
were returned. During the Summer
vacation eleven indictments were re-
turned. In october, 1884. one indict-
ment was returned. In November,
1884. four indictments were returned.
In December. 1894, five indictments
we're returned. including two against
Seam Beard and his thirteen CO.
defendants. And In January, 1888. the
month prior TO my testimony. twelve
indictments were returned. The in
dictmentS returned in the Spring OF
1884 were not tried at that time be-
cause the court was engaged in try
ing Jail cases prior to the Summer
recess. No cases are tried during the
recess of July. August and September.
In the Fall months of October and
November, the court was engaged
mainly in trying Jail cases which had
accumulated during the Summer re-
cess. December, of course, is short
month, with the Christmas holidays.
Therefore. at the date of my testimony
there had not been sufficient time to
try these gambling indictments further
than as hereinabove stated. Moreover,
it should be borne in mind that in
these gambling cases every possible
legal defense is interposed, including
numerous dilatory motions and pleas,
which must be disposed of before the
cases can be brought to trial.
The assertion that do not know
whether or not my proposed gam
bling law Is constitutional (Par. II,
p. 24.
have no apology to make for not
being willing to be certain as to the
constitutionality of proposed legisla-
ton. See also my testimony in which
I discussed the constitutional question.
Copy of transcript has not been for
warded me.
The assertion that have prosecuted
only two cases and lost both Par.
1s, p. 25).
It is true that I have participated
in the trial of only two criminal cases
and that in both of them the Govern
ment did not prevail. These two cases
we're the prosecution of Bishop Cam
non and the prosecution of Mrs. Buc-
colo for murder. the latter case being
the one in which counsel for the COM
mittee disagreed with the court in the
matter of continuances and thereafter
severed his connection with this Office.
In both cases I felt that they were
of such a nature that ! should per-
sonally assume the burden and respon-
sibility for them. 1t is not my con-
ception of the duty of district attor-
ney to take some cases which are
easily won and try them in order to
make a record of cases successfully
prosecuted. nor has it been the policy
of my predecessors. Further, when 1t
Is recalled that this Office is engaged
in an enormous amount of both civil
and criminal business requiring 20 as
sistant district attorneys and ID clerks,
1t will be appreciated that the admin
istrative and executive duties in direct
ing this litigation and making deci-
sions in respect thereto are so burden
some that it is out of the question for
the district attorney personally to try
and prepare to try more than few
cases. and this has been the practice
and policy of my predecessors.
The assertion that bank cases have
been unduly delayed (Par. 20, p. 25) l..
This assertion is untrue and is an
other example of drawing conclusions
by stating half truths. Taking up the
cases mentioned in their order, the
following are the facts:
ROBERT H. SPEECH AND FRANK
r. CLAYTON-While this case has
been at issue since September 26, 1888.
the fact is that the counsel for the
Mr.. Fitzpatrick, prior to
the severance of his connection with
this office, had this case in charge.
After Mr.. Fitzpatrick's resignation the
case was assigned to another assistant.
who has the case in preparation for
trial, and it will be tried when reached
at this term of court.
JOHN COOKE GRAYSON - This
defendant has not been tried because
of his physical condition. The court
ordered continuance after a report
by impartial physicians designated by
the court to examine the defendant.
DAVID P. SMITH-This case was
assigned to Mr.. Fitzpatrick, counsel
for the committee. Why 1t was not
brought to trial before is matter he
can best explain. Since his resigna-
ton from this Office the case has been
assigned to another assistant, and is
in preparation for trial when reached
at this term of court.
ALEXANDER M. McNEILL &
BENEDICT McNEILL-This case has
not been tried because additional data
is in course of preparation by the
investigator and has been DELAYED due
to his engagements before committees
of Congress. Only recently this in
vestigator reported to this office that
he would have this additional data
within short time