The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-17
The Verdict ls In

Waterbury today still shakes it's head sadly as it stares at that solemn verdict of GUILTY returned late yesterday after noon against 20 defendants accused of conspiring to defraud the City of Water bury of over one million dollars. While many had conjectured just such a picture throughout the long weeks of the trial, the abruptness with which the jury of nine men and three women sealed the doom of the defendants completely silenced both accuser and defender alike.
 While some may contend that there is an avenue of escape open yet in the legal actions available to the defense, everyone is conscious of the fact that jury has brought in a verdict of guilty which can never be erased. It is written that the accused have been found guilty of the crime for which they were on trial and as . consequence must pay the penalty. What that will be remains to be seen when Judge Ernest A. Inglis imposes sen- tences tomorrow afternoon, pending dis position of motions to set aside the verdicts.
 For many years to come we imagine that the case of the State vs Frank Hayes, ct alia, will be argued pro and con. There will be the many who incline to the theory that the Hayes administration was thor oughly corrupt and intent on furthering it's own ends rather than the public's. There will be others loyal to old friend ships built on years of close association who refuse to believe that each and every one of the defendants was consciously party to . crime, the enormity of which has just been spread on the pages of legal history.
 But whatever your attitude it will have to be admitted, clearly and without malice, that fair trial was afforded the accused. The state threw its strongest weapons into the case, but no more so than did the defense. States Attorney Hugh M. Alcorn, ST., emerges naturally from the case more firmly ensconced in his position of ace prosecutor of this state and perhaps of a territory far greater than little Connecticut. The same might be said, too, for State Police Commissioner Edward Hickey, vigilant aide and tireless worker for the prosecution.
 The future for the accused is not particularly. bright one. In this respect they naturally are to be pitied. Unfortu- nately for mankind pity is quality which we have allowed to become soured by ;n&t Aval fO the surface at just such time as this in the cornmoner expressions that are being heard on every side and which make of the twenty-three who await the judges decision hardened criminals of the worst type. Degree of guilt, however, does not remove the black stain applied late yes- terday when the jury foreman intoned that fateful word nineteen times. The brush moves inexorably across the entire row of defendants.
 Thus a political adr pistration that began brilliantly nine ITS ago falls to bits. Only scraps of sel and bright paper remain of it. E promise that was there when Fr Hayes took office back in 1880 is forgotten completely. Waterbury will suffer for long years from the effects of this debacle. It's going to be the occasion of bitterness and tears for years to come and each and every one of us will doubtless be affected. Time is reputedly great healer of wounds, but we can't all live the second lifetime that is now demanded.
 The jury is in; the verdict is rendered; the fate of these accused lies in the hands of the judge. Whatever it may be we feel tt will be accepted by them as bravely as might be expected under such circun- stances. They will take what is pre- scribed for the offense on which they were convicted.