Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOUR
Issued Every Thursday.
Office of Publication: THOMSON. GA.
Entered as second-class matter, Dec. 8, 1910,
at the post office at Thomson, Georgia,
under the Act of March 3, 1579.
Subscription Price SI.OO Per Year.
Advertising 'R*»tes Furnished on Application.
-i tl,e la, ’ e * 0,1 y° ur Paper it
K* nieans that your subscrip-
tion expires this month. Subscriptions are dis
continued promptly on date of expiration.
11EXKW NOW.
THOMSON, GA., SEPTEMBER 28, 1919.
Wagg=&^gaaß^^gasasgS3gHg"e"?,!.. 1 . .u,-.
Casual Comment on Ausirs in
Georgia.
| UDGE ROBERT HARDEMAN, deliver-
J ing his charge to the Grand-jury of
Washington County, strongly denounced the
freedom of the press.
Os course those who indulge in this kind of
talk always pretend that they do not oppose
the right kind of liberty of the press. What
they oppose, they say, is the wrong kind,
namely, “license.”
I his is mere bosh. Between liberty and
license, there is no difference. Any book gl
synonyms will give you the one word, as the
exact equivalent of the other.
In the Lippincott ‘‘Handy Book of
Synonymes” (1888), I find—
‘’Liberty, leave, license, permission, free
dom.”
In the “Dictionary of English Synonyms,”
by Fenby. published in Great Britain, in 1907,
I find—
"liberty. independence, unrestraint, free
dom, privilege, immunity, leave, license, per
mission.”
Under the word "License,” I find the fol
low)’ ng synonyms—
“ Leave, permission, license.”
Roman Catholic priests are loudly con
demning liberty of the press, saying that what
they object to is not liberty, but license.
Judge Hardeman has evidently been read
ing this Romanist rot, and been taken in by it.
When the Pope controlled Europe, scholars
had to get a license, before they could print.
Roman Catholics have to do it, YET!
No Catholic dares to publish any work on
faith, morals, theology, or any other thing
touching religion and the church, without
'first obtaining the o. k. of his bishop.
The great Catholic publishing house, The
Benziger Bros., of New York, Chicago, and
Cincinnati, printed “The Great Encyclical
Letters of Leo XIII,” in 1903; and, before
they dared do so, they secured the permit of
Cardinal Farley and of the Pope’s censor in
Rome, Remigius LaFort.
These official approvals had to be printed
on the fly-leaf of the book!
Formerly, all persons were obliged to se
cure a similar license, as a condition precedent
to publishing. That’s how the word license
came to be equivalent to liberty. The Pope
gave the license to print, which meant, liberty
to print.
Now, when John Milton hurled against the
Pope’s censorship the celebrated “speech” in
favor of freedom of the press, he called it a
“Speech in favor of unlicensed printing”—
that is, he wanted every one to enjoy un
hampered freedom to print.
If Judge Hardeman had used the word
“licentiousness U instead of “license,”’ he
would have said something; and the Grand
jury, too, could have said something, by re
minding him that our laws provide ample
THE JEFFERSONIAN
restraints and punishment for licentious
printing.
Judge Hardeman expressed deep indigna
tion against those wicked men who even go so
far as to criticise the President of the United
States! Those men are truly wayward and
wicked, but what) can be said of miscreants
who even have the temerity to criticise Judges,
such as Bob Hardeman?
Mere words are inadequate. Violent panto
mime is needed, and even then one’s horror
and wrath are not commensurately demon
strated.
Less than two years from now, somebody
will be in the race against Bob; and that
hateful opponent will rake up Bolds tirade
against the freedom of the press; and Bob
will be running over the circuit, telling a
dozen different sorts of lies about it.
I hope Bob will not stop, though, until he
repeats his Sandersville charge in Emanuel,
Jefferson, Screven, and Bulloch.
John Slaton rushed into the New York
Times (Adolph Ochs) with a letter which
claims, in effect, the recent election in Geor
gia was a vindication of himself.
Mr. Ochs was so pleased, that he put Slaton
on the editorial page.
AV hat do you suppose the alleged vindica
tion is based on ?
Slaton says that John H. Boykin was
elected to succeed Dorsey in the Solicitorship,
and that 'the two dissenting Judges of the
Supreme Court had no opposition— therefore
Slaton is vindicated!
Gov. Harris doesn’t seem to see it that way:
old Nat intimates that Slaton and the Frank
case played h—ll with him.
Col. Nat ought to know, for he -was sure out
in the climate, where melancholy events were
transpiring.
Slaton did not tell his friend Ochs that
Justices Fish and Beck did no more than de
cide. that Judge Roan had erred in allowing
Conley to state what he saw Frank doing to
the girl from the upper floor, when he, Con
ley, peeped through the key-hole.
1 hat was a detail, not at all necessary to
the making out of the complete case against
Leo Frank—as I demonstrated in the Septem
ebr 1915 number of our magazine.
But these two Justices sided with the others
in refusing to hear a re-argument. They also
decided that there was no merit in the Extra
ordinary motion for new trial, which the then
governor Slaton had helped to fabricate, and
which he stressed so much in that 15,000 word
defense of his.
There was absolutely no criticisms of
Justices Beck and Fish, any more than there
has been of Justices Holmes and Hughes, of
the U. S. Supreme Court.
The furious rage aroused by Slaton grew
out of his dual role in the case, and out of his
manifest intention to disregard laws, courts,
and justice.
To act as governor and lawyer in the same
case, shocked popular instincts of right.. As
governor of the State, he was sworn to execute
the laws: as attorney for Leo Frank, he was
actively working to save a convicted criminal.
As governor, he owed a duty to the State
and to the Law: as Frank’s lawyer, he worked
with the detectives who were trying to sup
press evidence, manufacture testimony, and
run witnesses away.
It was this duplicity, SUGGESTIVE OF
CORRUPTION, that caused the storm to
break.
Then when all the Courts had decided
against Slaton, the lawyer, Frank’s attorneys
went through the farce of pleading the case
before one of themselves, acting as governor.
Senator Ollie James examined the
record of the official evidence, and refused to
accept a big fee to participate in the comedy
which Slaton’s associates in the case were to
act before him.
When as bold a man as Luther Rosser
thought it advisable to -creep to Slaton’s
house, at midnight, for a final conference be
tween partners, they both w T ere bound to know
they were defying destiny. z
In any event, Dorsey would have defeated
Harris; but if the Governor had avoided Sla
ton, and not allowed him to secure the pardon
of Stripling, the votes wrnuld have been much
more evenly divided.
An amazing thing to see a new man
like Dr. Keese, unknown to public life, cut
into the campaign, without fuss, speaking
tours, daily papers, big advertisements,
money, or patronage, and beat the Ilarris-Sla
ton-Rosser-Senators combine by 38,000 votes!
Even in Fulton County, where the Frank
case issued was most intense, Dorsey beat the
whole bunch !
Where then, does Slaton's vindication come
in ?
Ask Gus Fite what the Frank case did to
him.
As to John Boykin, a little knowledge of
the facts may be illuminating:
In the first place, Boykin’s violent abuse of
me, and his frenzied zeal for Leo Frank as
sured him practically all of the Catholics and
J ews.
In the second place, there was the financial
backing of Slaton, Grant, Rosser, and some
others.
In the third place, his running-mate,
Stev ens, was considered a fine man and good
lawyer.
In the fourth place, Nat Harris had loaded
Eb Williams with Hamp McWhorter’s son;
and Hamp had done the only fool thing I
ever knew him to do in politics; he had writ
ten letters to Fulton County voters, soliciting
votes for his son.
It was reported that Eb Williams had been
married by a priest, that his wife was a Cath
olic, and that Ebenezer had been forced to
sign a bill-of-sale, as it were, to his expected
children, delivering them to the Italian pope.
Besides, Eb. was accused of being a Leo
Frank sympathiser, himself.
Hence, the average voter in Atlanta was
between the Devil and the Deep Sea. He
couldn't enjoy himself, in either direction;
and, in many cases, the perplexed citizen took
to the woods.
Os course Slaton didn't explain all this to
Mr. Adolph Ochs, of the New York Times.
By the way, suppose Hughes is elected
President!
That would be another vindication of John
M. Slaton.
Arc Hearst, Ochs, Pulitzer, Abell and Sla
ton supporting our Baptist brother, Charley
Hughes?
If not, why not?
Vindicatory logic should be consistent.'
If the re-election of Justices Fish and Beck
is a vindication of the pro-Frank champions,
they should rally to Brother Charles. He,
also, dissented from the majority of the
J ustices.
Is the Atlanta Journal for Hughes?
Is the Georgian supporting Brother
Charles?
Is the Catholic morning daily in Augusta
roaring for Hughes?
Is George Long of Canada bringing The
Telegraph over to the dissenting Justice whose
decision was so loudly praised, last year?
I guess our vote for Fish and Beck com
mits us to voting for Hughes.
Is it not so?
Don't all speak at once.
Hon. Carl Vinson paid the old Pops a nice
compliment, by naming J. C. C. Black as first
man on his delegation to the Congressional
convention.
