Newspaper Page Text
Butler, J. E. Munsey, John H. Barry,
v Peter J. Smith, Henry W. LegleltneY,
Ernest C. W. Basey, Paul J. Mornn,
William :E. fteddin, Michael J. Han
nan, Murray L. Pennell, Edward
Smythe, George AndersonFrank J.
Higgins, Frank K. Painter, Fred J.
Mooney, William .Shupe and Michael
J. Cunnane, for the following rea
sons, to-wit: . ,
"1. We believe that the' above
named persons did not have a fair
and impartial trial before Judge And
erson. We are more convinced of
it of the fact that a train was char
tered for the conveyance of the
men, to the Fort Leavenworth peni
tentiary fptty (40) days in advance
of the verdict of the jury. After
sentence was pronounced, Judge
Anderson "railroaded' the men. to
the penitentiary without giving them
an opportunity to apply for a super
sedeas in the U. S. Court of Anneals.
That courtMater granted a super
sedeas and released the men on bail.
"2. We believe in. the innocence
of the men. It was sb.own.that the
verdict -of the jury was, ong, at
least as to fourteen men, six of, whom
were granted new trials by theourt
of Appeals, and eight jmen were re
leased by Judge Anderson hiniself,
and yet It was the same jury that
"convicted alKof the defendants.
"3. We believe, that the verdict of
the jury -gSdue to inflammatory
speeches and misconduct on the part
of Judge Anderson and ex-United
States District Attorney Miller.
"4. We believe' that the whole
prosecution was and- is an attempt
to break up he. International Asso
ciation of Bridge and Structural Iron
Workers'and to discredit organized
labor generally:" ' "
To this petition has been -added a
letter from "Elijah N. Zoline, ,-who
with Chester H. Krum, ..represents
the ironworkers. ' i'
In the letter Zoline makes the
charge that Judge Anderson was
and that when a petition for a change 1 the part of. Judge Anderson,
I of venue was prpsepted to- hinu he
new into a nt oarage, ana tnreatenea
the attorneys for the. defense with
contempt 0f court proqeedings.
v"In the afternoon of the" same
day," the letter continues, "Judge
Anderson sent for the attorneys and
assured them he had no prejudice
against organized labor and urged
th.eni to withdraw their petition for
a change of venue. Thus by threat
and intimidation and false promises
Judge Anderson retained jurisdiction
in the case. That he was manifestly
unfair is shown "inline petition.
, "A special train to conyey the de
fendants to the Leavenworth .peni
tentiary without a stopover, either at
Chicago or Kansas City, was ordered
during the trial and forty days. before
the verdict, of the jury. The verdict "
was returned on December 26, 1912.
Fac-simile copies of letters of Su
perintendent' of Terminals of the Mis
souri Pacific Railway are herewith
attached.dated November 19, 1912,
December 14, 1912, and December
24, 1912J No comment is necessary
on this Incident, but perhaps Judge
Anderson may explain why, in spite
of the protest on the part of the 'de
fense, he held court on Christmas
day. Was at with a view of previous
train arrangements? Compare
The' last letter refered to, written
on Dec. 24, conveyed $e information
that the shipment of prisoners would
be ready on or-about Dec. 28.
Zoline then points out that al
though sentence was pronounced at
noon, the men were on their way to
the penitentiary an hour later. Uhjs
is grounds to suppose thai the com
mitment papers were made out be
fore sentence was passed.
The attorney charges that Ander
son iy Jfacial expressions and 4rer
auent outbursts of passion, when at
tacking the attorneys, defendants and '
witnesses, hurt the defense in tne
eyes of the jury.
"The threats and intimidation on.
.. ttffi rJifevau.
A& &.UK JA.