Evening star., 1947-03-07
Letters to The Star
A Sedition Case Defendant
~


Demands to Be Tried
To the Editor of The Star:
Your lead editorial "Travesty on
Justice" in your March issue is one of
the most thought provoking in the his
tory of one of Americas most pro-
vocative legal cases.
OF course the Justice Department is
to blame and very much to blame for
its flagrant mishandling of the anti
sedition case over the years. But are
we to be led to believe that the in
ferior Federal Court in the District of
Columbia itself is blameless? The
record will not bear out any such con-
tention or implication and I know
The Star, true to its inherent fair
play, will seek to expound all sides OF
this great controversy. After all, this
attitude would but properly climax The
Stars own uniformly fair reports Of
the incompleted court trial itself.
It seems only logical a, higher court
should now be called upon to grapple
with this bungled cause. I am sure
The Star will not want to countenance
the establishment of a narrow-minded
legal precedent decreeing that the
Government stall or drop all cases it
feels it may lose. After all, this case
including its amazing major and minor
implics tions-is going to be tried
whether anybody likes it or not. Isn't
it better that it be tried legally, rather
than resolved informally for many years
to come in the shop, on the farm, in
the subway or on the high seas?
Defendants Impoverished"
Indictments in this case were be-
fore the inferior Federal Court in the
District of Columbia from the middle
of 1912 to the latter part of November,
1916. If the mass trial" was a
"Travesty on Justice" In 1916, wasn't
1t equally so in 1912? Surely the court
erred in waiting nearly four and one
half years-until surviving defendants
were utterly impoverished and ruined
in business and personal reputation
to render the pontifcal, trial-less
verdict you take for the caption on your
leading editorial.
The record will further show that
some Of the defendants themselves re-
peatedly over the years since Chief
Justice Eicher's death pleaded with the
court to give them bread in the form of
a vinoication trial. Finally, at long
last, the court replied after the No
vember elections. But its reply was to
give all the defendants as well as the
Government and the public at large
the stone of dismissal-dismissa with
out court vindication, without the de-
PENDANTS being allowed one syllable in
court to meet the stupendous charges,
without any form Of restitution either
in finances or reputation or even in
some cases climate in which to obtain
or retain a job in conditioned social
order successfully prejudiced against the
defendants by the strange dilatory at
titude of prosecutor and court. If this
isn't conviction by mere accusation, just
what is?
... Asks for Precedents. ...
Where are the precedents, the cita-
tions, the authorities allowing such
dismissal of such a case? whatever
can be said against the appeal of the
Justice Department--and plenty can and
doubtless will be said-at least 1t is on
the side of due process of law-eyen If
very belatedly so.
Court and prosecutor long ago
violated the presumption of innocence
as well as due process of law. Thus
it would seem but the part of equity
to grant the defendants the right to
fight for their own American innocence
and to recoup what. they can in the
form Of reputation, prestige and business
ability. In their trial-less but multiply
indicted condition they have long since
suffered all the possible disadvantages
of trial without being allowed an op-
portunity to win the major advantage
of any trial-a clean bill of health be-
fore their friends, neiglabors and business
associates. It would seem but automatic
that an American citizen should be
granted the right to fight for a clean
bill of health when victimized by three
next-door to-treason charges.
PRESCOTT BENNETT.