wtdfokp Mym TKmrrNTR, mfdt'ord. ottkoox, Thursday, November 1. i?i-2s.
PAGE FIVE
5
'A
.4
Final Digest Poll Shows a
Landslide for Mr. Hoover
I'rcmi The Literary hise-l nf XovomlM-r S. III2K
iioovi:k smith
I low the
Kami.' voti'iH
voiotl in 1 It!'-
lluw the
same voiei'K
vnifrt in 1 t'-M
I !
Aiat:iniu
Arizonn
ArknnsaH
Oilifornia
i Yilnnuln ... Q
t'ltniini-iiruiO ...
Oufljiwato
Uisi. t'olumMu
Flnrhhi ...
(ivm pin
Idaliu
Illinois
J iidi:in:i .
low:-. O
Kansas
Keuturky
Louisiana
.MllillK ...
Maryland
MuSMIi'hUKl'l t
Michigan
.lliin--i-oia .......
.Mississippi
Missntui ,
' Montana
Nl.lasLa
Nevada
N. I lampsliire
N. Jer.scy
X. Mexlc.r . ...
New , fork
N. Carolina
N. Dakota
Ohio .:
Oklahoma
Oregon
I'enrifcylvania
Hhoitc Island
S. Carolina
S. Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
1'laJl
Vermont
A"lrh'inia
Washington
W. Virginia..
Wlseimsin
V.vomlnK
Sla. .unknown
Totals
12 1 3 . fl 0 7 4.351 7.221 12. JUS 707 9. (I'M
3 .1.371 1.K4U t?'l 2.25a 593 1.19"
1 1.652 4. Mo 5 11,267 963 S.780
. 13 K9.103 62.2S3' lu.(i.si; .ll.r.fcii 22.717 l-.Tiifl
I li Hi. Slid ll.L'IMi 2.627 6.779 -'0 2.S29
7 2T.47I1 19.724 1.226 10.915 4.61TT 4. 225
3 4.1 13 2.1.2K 671 1.422 356 MIS
3.765 1.474 4S9 2.092 525 663
6 19.022 7.1 47 S.753 9.951 1.715 6.567
14 1 0.507 3. ICS 5.27" 12.U2:U 7S7 9.411
4 (I. MX 4.224 642 S.lloV 1.301 1.00S
29 l.".6.641 1 19,729 10.S06 97.5.15 43.970 32.67 5
15 54.756 3 s. 605 7.977 25.250 9.0 1 1 .SI 3
13 45.705 .14. Ml 6 3.763 IS. 312 K.S46 5.714
. 10 -l'Q'94 32.366 5.1.32 1 2.154 4.907 4.X70
. 13 247439 14.407 6.524 16.390 3,407 10.225
. 10 10.05-1 2.997 5.410 14.1127 1 ."Nil 9.755
6 I5.KI4 12.343 904 5.425 2.123 2.308
5 15.911 K.62I 4.326 !l.9lO 2.574 5.160
IS 7 s. 309 04,23 2.S44 39.029 Is. 719 12.991)
15 71.947 55,2(12 5.454 25,069 9.1. M S 6.524
12- 67.570 49.651 4.695 29.71 2 14.KI1S 7.311
. 10 . 4.712 ' 1.034 '2,791 10.157 6S2 7.679
IS 62.613 42.7SO 11'. 1 35 33.S49 10.S99 IS. 127:
4 7.352 5.040 1.031 3..1SS 1.315 1.234
5 22.951 1 1.956 4.142 10.696 4.060 4.47S
3 1.172 1.021! 209 737 232 329
. 4 10.101 S.II66 . 635 3.S26 1.457 1.614
14 ' 55.775 42.393 . 5.125 20.975 . K.793 S.220 '.
3 2.951 1.663 S12 1.694 434 957
45 . 21S. 920 162. 36?, 23.143 1S5.U59 5S.466 SS.4U
12 21.961 1 1,764 7.054 15. 60S 1,491 1 1.763!
. 5 7.413 5.072 1.170 4.1 39 2.431 93
24 97.S52 69.299 13.661 40.719 16. SSI! 15.S39
. 10 29.5S5 14.331 10.722 12.270 2.656 7.3S0
.1" 16.102 1 1.263 2.170 7.622 '3.94 2.1SS
. 3S 177. 59S 133.763 14.537 SS.C27 4S.79S 22.013
5 10,001 S.241 374 4.90S 2.27S- 1.763
9 3,442 73 1 2.037 S.936 SS2 6.619
5 11.016 K.279 1.1 16 4.61S 2.302 1.44
12 22.S17 12.019 7.3S6 13.664 1.944 1 1,202
I'll 52.S64 I3.S59 31.476 35,621! 3.S76 26.?05
4 5.316 3.761 66S 3,539 1.436 IBM
4 9.053 7.240 377 2.660 1.174 966
12 24.019 111. Hull 10. (IIS 15.S70 2.01 3 1 1,365
7 24. 191 17.334 2,619 9.S21 5.100 2.500
5 17. ISO 11.S21' 3.407 9!l!06 2.3S2 5. SSI
.13 32.0X5 24.470 1.795 22.175 1 1.299 6.463
.." 3 2.S49 2.005 3S9 1,263 465 495,
1 9.007 5.1 34 1.321 ' 6.757 I ,S66 2.S6I
...",31 1.750,5X4 1,266.325 26 1.4X3 9S7.795 .1-6,(1. 447 433.510
nx.vi. in-;ri HNs rnoM ni-'.w yoiik. ciihaco. iiiiini-:i.iiii.
In these three Ini'lte eilie,s tin- entice enrolled eleelnrate was polled.
(ho minis riven lit'low arc Included in the table of ballots by states
shown above. '
HOOVKR
How
same
the
i'tltlTS
voted In I 924
SMITH
TlTTw the
same voters
voted in 1924
-i """ a
WHY DID JUDGE THOMAS NOT ANSWER THE GRAND JURORS' QUESTIONS AS TO GRAFT? WHY DOES HE
.&OT ANSWER THEM NOW? DAY. AFTER DAY THE PEOPLE HAVE DEMANDED TO HAVE THESE ANSWERED-
On Aprir '1"k 1SI-S, the m aud .jury ,f Jackson county, Oregon, in open
i'i-t, ami in tin presence of 'tin- grand jurv. presented to .Indue Thomas a
.? :,. .1... i-. ll : k, , .... I ...1. .'.
Still-
unient 111 the Pillowing rorm and substance:
Modford. Oregon, April J."!. 19''S. In the Circuit Court (flic
of Oregon for the Count v of .lacUson.
PARTIAL REPORT OF THK (IRANI) JURY TO T11K ClIl'lT COl'IfT
iu 1 ii:i;vAV 1 'M-vpv vim'I i: ii,'i:iiv
lt'e want the court's advice on whether we shall indict in cases as I'ollows:
1.' Federal prohibition officers re.-eivinu; from the coiOly prohibition
fund as much as 100.00 per month for mileage while on a salary from
the federal trovcrunient. Is the taking of this nionev lawful? If not, wh.-U
the offense ! . O
'J. A state prohibition ofXiccr receiving money l'iu the count v prtihi-
hition fund for no seeiiil work done while on a salary from the state. Is
the lakiuu; of this inonev lawful j.il' lrrrf, what is the offense?
Slate traffic officers receiving, as much as .fSOOOO from the county
prohibition fund while on a salary front the state for iii special worU
doue. Is the taking of this mone lawful If not, what is the olfiiise?'
I. Stale game wardens receiving inonev from the county prohibition
fund for no particular work done while on a salary from the state. Is the
fiiking of this money lawful? If not, wlOit is the offeiio-c ?
it. Police offiiM'is of different lowns of the county receiving money
from 1 lit county proliibitiou I'undP'or no particular work liic while on a
salary its policemen. Is the taking of this money lawful? If int, what i-
the offense ? -
(i. County officers r-eiving ijO.OO lo -15.00 a month I'l'Oin the county
prohibition fund for wo particular work done while on a .-salary from the
countv. Is the taking of thi nionev lawful ? If not. what is the offense.'
7. What can we do when officers say this money drawn fiyin the county
prohibition fund was advanced to undercover men whose names thVy do
in it 1,-nnu- !
If an officer cannot account for inonev received from
lion fund, is he guilty of an offense? If so, what offense?
9. Is the prosecuting attorney liable for money paid out
in (litest ions 1 to (i, inclusive?
10. This grand jury is not satisfied with the
instructions, therefore we ask the court for furl he
ready lo follow the instructions of the court.
The amount of nionev turned into this special prohibition fund since.
January 1. 191!."). is .:!!)'.-! 19.7!). 7.") percent of this amount under Ihe 19'J7
law. is at the sole disnosarol the nroseciitini'- attornev and -" .percent, of
i d i .-
special
advice
tlu prohibi-
;is set. fort! i
prosecutor's
and . we arj
it is at the disposal of the sheriff, f l,5)(;.").l22 of
turned to the general fund of Jackson counjy.
I'espectfullv submitted.
the lolal sum is the amount.
proceeded to indict the parties involved for the Commission of the crimes
set forth in the presentment and in that event the presentment would not
he tiled or preserved hevond the sittiiiLr ot the cm nil .lurv as the law on
this subject, taken from the Oregon Code, is as follows:
SKCTION li:! l. A IMJKSKNT.M KXT is made to the court, bv the
foreman, in the presence of the Oram! Jurv, and with the CO'CljKliKXOF
OF FIVI-: of their number: 1UT IJF.IXO A .MFRK FORMAL STATF-
MFXT OF FACTS, F01 T1IF l'Fb'l'OSH OF OliTAIXIXO TIIK A I )-
VICF OF THF COFU'T AS TO TIIK LAW ALMSIXO TIIKUFOX. IS NOT
TO lH FILFA- IX COl'inOOK IM.'F.SKL'VKI) HKVONI) TIIK SITTINO
OF 'IMF (IIv'XND .M'K'V." .
1)11) JI'IKIK THOMAS UFA! LV DKSIL'F THAT THF (IUAXH
iiii' L'lioi'i i i ii'iiie ilTAv u'iimiiiiii'ii jt t - f p 1 1 i.1 -"no o l--P
.il iti'ojivii i.i' .i." r,ni.w. n i .1 in. i ku -uw unv in
FORTH IX TIIF1K' (Jl'KSTIOXS COXSTITUTFD CRI.MFS?
His desire must, be ascertained A mm t he explanation of his letter and
from what he said and did. He stated in Ins letir of explanation:
0 '"1 TOLD the grand .jury that I would send the document, to one of the
assistant attornev generals, acting a-' attornev for the state, and the grand
jury, and that he would answer them at thenext meeting."
The fact that Judge Thomas referred the answering of these ques! ions
to the assistant attornev djeneral who had been acting for the grand" jury
is a very significant fact in determining whether Judge Thomas reallv
wanted the questions ansAvered for the URAXD JFRV IN TIIF1R PRF-
SFXTMFXT STATFD: -10. TI I Is (JUAN I) J FRY IS NOT SAT1SFI Kl
WITH TIIK SI'FCIAL l'ROSK(T TOR'S I XSTRl'CTTOXS, THKR.lv
FOUK we ask the COFK'T for further advice AND WK AUK RFADY TO
FOLLOW TIIK IXTUFCTIOXS OF TIIK COFRT."
Did Judge Thomas desire, or did he believe that tlfe assistant attorney
general, who had not given the grand jury satisfaction in the matter, would
answer the oiicstions? WKLL, UK l)il) NOT, for Judge Thomas in his
letter of explanation slated. 'The. document was sent to the assistant
attorney general, who replied that each and all .of the quest ions had
been discussed and answered inanv times in the grand jurv room, and
FOR' THAT RKASOX UK UKFUSKD TO AXSWKU Til KM AGAIN';'
Another wonderfull v logical reason for silence on this matter. It is indeed
verv amazing that, the assistant attorney generals, who were selected by
. Juilgj'. Thomas, to render the grand jurv this service and who were paid
19il!.l") of the taxpayer's nionev for their service, should have, refused, to
comply with Judge Theunas' inmost to answer the grand jury's questions
upon the flimsy, absurd aud'ridiculous excuse that they had answered them
hoi ore. To date Judge 1 lioinas has absolutely tailed to answer these ques
tions or lo have anyone else answer tliein for the grand jury. , ' -.
Republic
Farrell,
UIKVK,
Central
e p u t y
orowonian.
Connnittee, over
District Attornev,
(-iie;ii:o
New York Oily...
I'tiilndelpliia
119.1116
105.S64
69.704
73.SSO
54.530
5.477
14.K5S
3.209
71.SI0
1 10.770
4S.4 29
32.397
40.063
2S.9KI
23.2S3
69.SS0
9.649
llonvei- is shown ahead In 42 slates and the "Solid South," which
has hecn nenioeinlie lor more than fifty years, will he broken aeeord--'
illis ta-the final i-eturnn. ofThe l.ileiary UiKest s huue national prest
ilenlial poll liuhlisheil today.
Alabama and Arkansas are inaetleally a stand-off between the two
i-aiididaK-s in this in-e-eb-etion hallotlntt and The l.ltiM-ary DiRest reioils
thai iiinsl of the politieal observers nt-e iuelined to place both of these
slates in (lie mith ooliinin.
Willi Hie exception of a few somewhat doubtful si-etions llooviv is
loadhw,- by substantial majorities in all of the oilier 42 states and the
returns litdicale his probable election by an ample margin.
Other than the marked pluralities accorded Hoover in the great
majority of states the outstandlliK features of the noil are the indicated
Kain of the Democratic nominee over the returns of his party In the
official 1924 election and Hie sllonpr Republican Invasion or Ihe south.
Of the record-breAklnB tolal of 2.767.262 ballots cast In this "post
card elecfion" Hoover has ((3.2 per cent and Smith polls 35.7 per cent,
Willi the small remainder distributed amoiiK the sevcrnl minor can
didates. - -
The Literary Digest in Its columns calls especial attention to a
possible last minute switch of votes, such as occurred between the
Lar-illette and IJavis ranks immediately prior to the 192 election day.
which mlsrllt reverse the returns ill certain 'stales from Hoover to
Smilh. and It is c.lutioned that this factor should be taken into con
sideration In determlninc the validity of the "straw" poll, for all of its
ballots were returned and counted mor than two weeks before the
regular election. -
It is pointed out that in a separate polllnB of Philadelphia, where
postcard ballots were sento the entire electorate. Hoover' poll 60.704
votes to Smith's 4S.429. or about 4 i to 3. wherea., !r. Ihe 1 924 election
the-l-alio between t'oidlilite and Davis was about (Pi, lo 1.
Likewise in Chicago, where all the registered voters were asked to
"respond for their favorite candidate Hoover is leading Smith by 99.916
to 7 I.N 10. a ratio of about 10 to 7. while four years ago Ooolidge re
ceived approximately a 3 to 1 return over Davis In the regular el tlon
w.i,,i.u MhowiniT a possible heavy Democratic trend In the larger cities.
The poll Indicates Hoover leadlnK In .New York state with a plurality
Xt'f 2 IS. 920 to 1S5.659 votes with all the returns counted. In New York
City, where H is staled every accredited voter was uslted to vote in this I
pod. Smith leads his Republican rival by 140.770 to 1(15. S64. while in
7924 Coolidge carried all five boroughs of the city.
The tabulations show Hoover ahead in Massachusetts, which Is con
sidered by many astute political observers as Ihe prize doubtful state
of the entire union, by 0 margin of slight over 2 to 1.
I lie completed leiui ns show Smith receiving about 3S pet cent ol
his support from those who stated that they voted Republican In the
" last presidential election, while Hoover obtains over 75 per rent of his
strength from' those who professed they were llepuhllcnns in 1924.
Of the 444.370 who cast ballots in this "straw" election hut who
dbl not vote in the official presidential elec'n four years ago practi
cally 60 per cent arc vdting Republican and over 3S per cent are voting
Democratic 111 this "straw" poll.
"The poll." The Literary Digest states editorially, "whose final re
sults are tabulated herewith, has proved to be tlie greatest In history,
with Ihe complete returns some 3SO.000 votes beyond the reeord
niaking poll of 1924. O '
"The total of votes received. 2,g7.263 out of a tolal of approximate
ly 1 9.000.000 ballots sent out. represent n proportion-of 14.6 pet' cent,
considerably above the average for polls of this sort.
"The outstanding features of the completed poll are the great plur
ality given Air. Hoover most of the states, the indicated Democratic
gain over 1924. espec:.(9y in Ihe largest cities, and the Republican
strength developed throughout the south.
"The Digest, as was announced In the first article on the poll, and
ns emphasized since, presents lis figures In an absolutely noii-partlsan
way, or an 'uinnlparLsnn' way, as one friendly editor puts it, with ihe
desire only to gel at the farts In tile case and so falilj present them
tlQ its readers may draw their own conclusion
"The present huge polling list Is the work of n number of years,
founded originally on the telephone books of all parts of the country,
expanded, with the elimination of duplications, by the lists of automo
bile owners of the countir. and. In many places, by registration lists.
"The list of Digest subscribers is not included ns a unit, as a gQ'
' many commentators seem to believe, when crediting ihe whole polling
list with a 'highbrow' tendency, and a companion tendency to minimize
nilzo the Democratic strength ' f',n s ,u 1" Pe-' cent. As this poll
now stands the electoral vote would be: Hoover 4SS, Smith 43.
in IllO
answer
ltciKTt Ijinsiiw
WA8HINT.TOX, Nov. 1.-41
secretary Kellogg ordered the
state, ilepartnient closed today
nnf O'clock Ollt of respect
former secretnry of state. Robert
Utnslng. whose funerr.1 services
will he held nt his home, llnrlal
will take place at Watertown.
X. v., tomorrow.
Conn., in which
snt for 50 years.
a colonial court
at '
toj
P0UGHS
Apply over throat and chtat
aw allow small piacea of
A tablet mnrks the site of .lore
ly Addams Tavern In Hartford, j
VARO RUB
Qr it Million Jmt, UltJ Ymarlr
KATIK M,
Speaking of this .document l!
i signature of its chairman. Fra
said:-
"IT IK OH? INFORMATION THAT A IXX'F'MKXT DKSKI
XATKDA FARTIAL RKI'ORT, 1HTT IN FACT WHICH WAS A IM.'K
SKXT.M KNT, was presented to .Judge Thomas, signed by Katie M. (iriove,
I ore woman. . . '
.Judge Thomas in his letter of October '2 J1!WS, , published
Mod ford Mail-Tribune, in attemviting to explain why be did not
the questions sot forth in this document or presentment, stated:
---"ASSFMIXO. .THAT THIS DOITMKXT HAD 15 10 FX PROPKRI A'
TOTKI) I'COX in'-the urand jurv room I examined it and found it to
be a, series of questions WHICH IF AXKWFRKD 15V TIIK COlRT.,
WO.ULD FXDOl'liTKDLV CRKATK Til K 1 M I' R K S S I () X THAT I
WOL'U) XOT I5K IMPARTIAL IX TIIK IXVKSTKIATIOX UN 1) 10 R
WAV. I told the grand jury Unit I would send the document to one of
the assistant attorney generals, acting as attorney for the state, and the
grand jury, and that he would answer them at the, next-mooting."
Hero we have .Judge .TliMnas' own statement, that at the lime this
presentment was'doliverod to him J IK ASSUMKD THAT IT HAD 15KKX
PROPKRKV VOTFT) UPON, so -at this time ho could not have had any
objeition to answering those questions upon the ground which ho now urges,
namely, that they had not boon voted upon, nor .loos ho state that, he was
not sufficiently advised of. the. law to answer the questions. It is a very
significant fact, however, that -Judge Thomas explains his refusal to answer
these questions at, the time they wore presented by stating: "1 examined
it ind found it to be a series of quoitions, which if answered bv the court,
WOULD UXD0UI5TKDLV CRKATK TIIK 1.VPRKSKIOX THAT I WAS
NOT IMPARTIAL IX TIIK IX VKSTKJATIOX bXDKR WAV." What:
a bogus, flimsy, "fibsurd and ridiculous excuse. Who believes that the ans
wering of anV ((' these questions by Judge Thomas would in the slightest
degree show that he was not impartial in the investigation under way?
WILL JUDOK THOMAS or I5KRT AXDKRSOX. or the RKPU15LICAX
CKXTRAL COM MITTKK. explain in what way or manner the answering'
of any of these questions would show t hat .Judge I nomas was not "impartial s
H the answering ol the questions propounded bv the grand ,pirv to .Judge
Thomas in this presentment would show him -to be impartial then no
judge could answer the questions asked in any presentment .without benfg
impartial, yet presentments to the court and the answering of the ques
tions bv the judge is a part of the procedure found in all criminal t'odes
of our country; The law on this, taken from ihe Oregon Code, is as follows.
"Section 14H. PK'KSKXTM KXT, Dl' T V OF C()lTl!T TO IX-
STRUC'lo T1IKRKOX. A presentment cannot bo found and presented to
the court except as provided in Seel ion Hb, and when so lound and pio-
sonted, THK COURT-SHALL OIVK SU II I XSTRUCTIOXS to the grand
jui;v concerning the law of the. case as it may think proper and necessary."
Judge Thomas' violation of his plain duly to answe
at ta time thev, wore presented to mm is a verv grave
serious to be evaded under the flimsy, absurd and ridiculous
by him at that time.
WHY DID JUDOK THOMAS XOT WANT TO (II VK TIIK (IRAXD
JURV TIIK INFORMATION SOUOIIT 15V Til KIR QUKSTIONS?
Read those questions and draw vour own conclusions. WOULD TIIK
AXSWKRIXO OF TIIKSK QUKSTIOXS l!V JUIKIK THOMAS ,RK
OUIRK HIM TO TKLL '1TIK (IRANI) JURV THAT TIIK ACTS IX
RKOARD TO WHICH TIIKSK QUKSTIOXS WKRK DIRKCTKD DID
XOT COXSTITUTK CRIMFS, jJ)R WOULD UK HAVK TO TKLL
TH K.I THAT TIIKSK ACTS DID COXSTITUTK C R I M K S, FOR
WHICH TIIK (IRAXD JURV SHOULD INDICT? JUDOK THOMAS,
THK PUI5LIC IS PATIKNTLY WAiTlXd FOR YOUR AXSWKR.
' If it. were a fact an'l had Judge Thomas told the grand jury that the
acts sot forth in the' presentment did not constitute crimes that would have.
absolutely 'KXDKD tin; matter and Ihe presentment 'under the law would
not have been filed or preserved beyond the sitting of the grand jury.
Had Judge Tliomfr answered the questions by stating that the acts set forth
in the presentment did constitute crimes . the grand jury would have
Paid Advertlaemant
those questions
matter and too
excuse offered
Judge Thomas further stated i'i liis letter of explanation: "I informed
thorn of the reply of Ihe assistant attorney general and then asked them
if the document had boon voted on by, the grand jurv. Thev all answered
'no.' 1 TIIKX TOLD Til KM that NOTHIXO thereafter should .be re
ported out until after discussion and vote and directed them to take the
document, return to their room and vote on it. I KXPLArNKD TO THK.M
THAT IF TH KY VOTKD TO RKTURX IT INTO COURT AND DID
SO, I WOULD F1LK IT A X I ) IT WOULD T11KX UK A PUBLIC DOC
UM KNT." , . . .
This TIIRKAT OF JU1HIK THOMAS to FILK this .PRKSKNT
MKNT if it was returned bv 1ho grand jurv and MA K K IT A PUP.L1C
DOCUMKNT IN -VIOLATION OF Section 14:54 above quoted which pro
vides that the PR KSKXTM KNT IS NOT TO UK v I L K I ) I.N COCK'l
OR PRKSKRVKI) I5KYOXI) TIIK SITTINO OF TIIK (IRANI) JURY
is verv significant in view of the fact that at this time, as has been stated
to' lis bv some of the grand jurors, Judge Thomas was severe .towards tin:
grand jurv and ADYISKI) Til KM THAT TIIKY WOULD PK LlAliLK
FOR DA MACKS IF TIIKY VOTKD TO PUT THAT ON RKOORD, unless
llioy indicted. -
Tdiofr voting to bring in the presentment did not mean, as Jirdge
Thomas said and threatened, 'that it must be filed and become, n public,
document. W e are wondering if Judge Thomas applies the same rule
to tTio endorsement that he defrauded the attorneys out of. In. his letter
to Mr. Hough ho says, '"Those endorsements have become ; public, docu
ments." Will .1 udge Thomas tell us when the attorneys VOTKD otv this
endorsement ? .
WILL J UDCtK THOMAS TKLL US 'WHY' 1IK ADVISED THK
(IRANI) JURV THAT IF TIIKY RKTURNKI) THK PRKSKNTMKNT
UK WOULD FILK IT AND IT WOULD I5KC0MK 'PUBLIC DOCU
MKXT? In view of the law above quoted which forbids the filing of the
presentment or its preservation beyond the sitting of the grand jury we
are AMAZKD that Judge Thomas should put such a fear in the minds
of the gjjand jurors.
FOR WHAT RKASOX WAS JUDOK THOMAS SO ANXIOUS TO
rilIS-lRKSKXTMKXT Was it because he would have to answer
the questions bv advising the gYaud jurv that the acts inquired about, did
not constitute .'crimes, OR WAS IT BKCAUSK HK WOULD HAVK TO
ADVISK TI I KM THAT THK ACTS DID COXSTITUTK CRIMKS 1'Oli
WHICH THK PART IKS IXVOLVKD SHOULD BK INDICTED Judge
Thomas, the public and voters would like to hear your explanation. ; . ' ,
This judge, who pretend to abhor legal technicalities which defeat jus
.Pico, as tin excuse for the Eolation of his plain, duty to rfssist the grand
nirv in stamping out mine bv answering the queshoBs or their present
ment, now puts forth a false super technical reason, namelv. that the
presentment wji0 not voted upon, lie and his supporters have now aban
doned the ridiculous excuse of "impartiality." 1 V
Is it, any wonder that the grand jury after having presented this ' pre
sentment . lo Judge Thomas in compliance with the , requirements, of the
law should be afraid , to reconsider the matter and take a formal vote mi
it after Judge Thomas had told 1 hem and threatened that he would uiilaw-
fully file the presentment and make it it a public document and that they
would be liable for and subject to -.la m age suits? Was or was this
not intimidation 't :
The presentment was delivered to the court in the presence of the
entire grand jury and COXCURRKD in by all of them as the matter was
fully discussed by Judge Thomas and the gPand jury and no objection was
made by any grand juror to the presentment. WHY in the name of com
mon sense should anv of them have objected? Judge Thomas had told
them to go to the boltoiu of this matter. TIIKY DID NOT FEAR. TO
MA K K TIIK PRKSKXTMKXT until JU1KIK THOMAS TIIRKATKNKD
TO FILK IT AND MAKK IT A PUBLIC DOCUMKNT and ADVISED'
TIIKM THAT IX THAT 10 V EXT TIIKY -WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
DA.MA0K SUITS. , i ;
I it any wonder that, when those same jurors were summoned into
court that thev endorsed the letter of explanation above quoted and
which Judge Thomas has published as a political document'? The explan
ation betrayed the writer.
BETTER (iOVEUXMIONT LEAGUE.
1"! LL