Newspaper Page Text
JUDGE COX MAKES REPLY
TO WALTER PARK IN THE
SPENCER CLARK CASE
His Answer is in Unmistakable Language Which is
Supported by Affidavits, From Authorities, In
cluding the Prosecuting Attorney, in Case Who
is Supporting Judge Cox.
To The People of The
Second District:
The statement of .Mr. Waiter
I’ark, published in last week's is-
buo of til" papers is the occasion tor
tills appearance, and I beg your In-
dnlgeice lo the extent that I be per
mitted to make some reply. Ills
statement was seemingly Intended
as an explanation ot that which
transpired at Damascus on the 3rd
of August, but Is so full of mis-
Ktatnmeals as to be an aggravation
of Ihe inaiilt rather Ilian an apology.
••The fault Is made worse by the ex
cuse. ”
This Damascus meeting was ar
ranged |,y my frleit Is. and Mr. Park
came uninvited. After l concluded
my speech, which was perfectly
friendly to Yhe Congressman in
every particular, Mr. Park came for
ward, and, acting in behalf of his
brother, the Congressman, under
took to make reply to my Tifton
tcpnee.li, a copy of which he claimed
to have had. lie then slated that
(Clerk’s ofltce without authority hav
ing been asked or granted by the
Court, and has not yet returned it,
though it was taken on the 9th, last,
.mil demand for immediate return
was made thiee days ago. 1 tele
phoned Mr, Sumner to know if he
iiad the record and after consider
able hesitation and evasion he ad
mitted that he did not. and refused
to tell who did have it. Mr. Coeh-
ioil. the Deputy Clerk, also tele
phoned him to know who hud the
record, and lie again refused to tell.
The taking of this court document
from the office of the court, even
with the consent of the Clerk, was
a most extra-ordinary thing to do.
It is the same as if a deed record
had been taken by a litigant and
carried into a foreign county and
there kept, when the book contain
ed the sole record of a writing in
controversy. Besides this, neither
Mr. Sumner nor Mr. Park were con
nected with the Clark case and both
know that the taking and the hold
ing of this record is against the
lie wanted to ask me some questions [(|W .
about the Spencer Clark case, and I
did proceed to propound such ques
tions, but they were all put as one,
and no pause was ever made for a
reply iinlll Die Iasi one had boen
propounded. He says that I made
no satisfactory reply, hot the truth
is, I came forward and with more
•inlet ami dignity limn one would
II is from recollection, therefore,
that 1 mil compelled to speak, and
if I am mistaken Die record will cor
rect me, provided It Is ever return
ed to the Clerk's office in Die same
condition as it was
away.
Tills statement is
wnen taken
•'I- »
■on cur red in by
ordinarily maintain under such cir-;others who heard the trial and know
cumstancoH, I made answer, and the case. Marion and Spencer
though it may not have been satis- Clark, brothers, were boarding in
factory lo Mr. I’aik. It seemed to Sycamrtre with Mr. and Mrs. C. I„
satisfy the entire audience that lie | Royal, The adjoining house was
had done me a gross injustice. Many I that of Mr. Jesse Zorn, the dcaces-
firomlnent people who were in the!,.q. One night after supper Marlon
audience came up to me after the'
event and assured me that they did
pot approve of flic cowardly attack
made upon me. One very prominent
citizen said, “I am a decent man,
been my pnlitlcul friends
to tills that they would now
me. .. _
vIoiih
support i figuri
Ihoust
xta'iUsuns liuvo tried to make it ap- slipped around the back way up
Hpear that he did not ask me any in- sfopa and on tiie porch and into
Clark was at the toilet in the
whicli was but thirty steps Iron:
Zorn house. Me saw a person
pioach the Zorn house, stop
listen and peep in th
">"J I iescql ibis attack. I nm Mr then 8 a‘w him go lo a negro house
you, and ao are my hoys.” Many [directly a.-ros Ihe street front w here
assured lint Dial while they had notjciark was; heard him hail in a low
and in a few minutes saw a
- home from the hack ol’ the
; and join hint, and together
Mr./(Valter Park and some of liis'^i’ 1 ,:al " 0 hat'll to the.Zorn house,
ip the
the
Man a ling question Hml that I did Hack door. Marlon .Clark then ran
mrt make reply to the questions he *0 the Hoyai house and inquired of
1>rop*mtided. They know Dial this *toyai, in the presence of bel
ts »ut srue and I offer the following '“other and all the children, if any
from a number of the leading and of the Zorn family were at home,
vwIMased catlzens of Early county jand Mrs. Royal told him that Mrs.
•Mile were n»re»ent: Zorn was at church and that Mr.
.. -We Hie undersigned citizens of!Zorn had gone for her. Marion
Early oounty were present at Dam-'Clark then said. ‘‘Somebody is
asciis on Ax-gust 3rd. on Die oceas-1 breaking into Mr. Zorn’s house,”
Jon of Judge Cox's speech there and land ht obtained Mr. Koyal's gun
heard the controversy between him |Hn(l Parted out, when tie was met
and Walter Pnrk. When Judge Cox ( by his brother, Spencer Clark, re-
had conceded Ills speech, two 0 r '.turning from town, to whom explan-
three persons called tor Park, Wal- atlon was made ns to whaf was liap-
tnr Park then went on the speakers i Pentng and he obtained a pistol,
atund and made « short talk in be- i,lld >*oth went to the Zorn house,
naif of Congressman Park, and then (Marion Clark went to the back door
asked If Judge Cox was in the aud-
is, that he was to blame, and that
•he Clarks were not at fault, and
when Dr. Harris arrived, Mr. Zorn
made the same statements to him,
as will he shown by affidavit, here
to annexed: and none of these facts
were contradicted or denied by any
body, hut accepted to be the truth
by everyone who heard the ease. Af
ter the evidence was in, I directed a
verdict of not guilty as to Marion
Clark and the Jury after being out
nearly two days, convicted the other
for murder with recommendation.
After the jury had been out for
sometime, they Inquired of the court
if they eould not return a verdict
for a less offense than murder, and
they were advised that under the
charge of the court that they could
not.
The defendant filed a motion for a
new trial, and at a later term when
it came on for hearing the then
acting solicitor slated to me that he
had studied the record, and that the
evidence world not sustain the find
ing, and that he doubted if it auth
orir.ed a verdict for anything; that
the con it ought to grant a new
trial. The statement of this gentle
man is hereto attached.
I stated to counsel for defendant,
in open court, that if they would
agree to enter a plea of guilty for a
less offense, that 1 would grhnt the
defendant a new trial and give him
a one year sentence. This they re
fused to do, but the next morning
when the case was called again, they
stated that in view of the statement
made by the court, and the fact that
the defendant did not want to
main In jail lor another year, that
they had concluded to accept the
proposition. 1 then told them that
it was not fair that I should Insist
that they enter a plea against their
will that 1 would grant the defend
ant a new trial and that we would
put him on trial again. After eon
suiting for awhile they decided to
enter the plea, and it was taken up
on recommendation of the Actini
Solicitor, and Ihe defendant Spencer
''link, was sentenced for ou\; yea
I then stated from the bench
pi n court, that it was a case wbe
a pardon should be granted, and
rear 1 that [ would lator recommend
the | pardon. A Baptist minister came
ap-1 to me and said that he had watched
and | tile case from the beginning, and
lence. Receiving an affirmative re
ply. he said that lie wished to ask
Judge Oox Home questions about the
Spencer Clark case. He then asked
the questions which appeared in his
nrttrle In the Albany Herald on Aug
ust l#th and also a»ked the .. addi
tional question which did not ap
pear in tlie Herald: If you did
with the ff«n, and Spencer Clark
mained on the front with the piatol.
In a ahort white two figures emerg
ed from the buck door of the house,
whicli was dark, no light whatever
being In the same,, and they came
up to the wash place on the back
porch,. Marlon Clark walled out
••halt.” when both ran. one going
one way and the • other another.
these things, why did-you do them.’ Marlon Ciaik fired the gun, whdeh
He asked the questions rapidly, one partly took effect In the shoulder of
after the other, not pausing an In- the fleeing man. The other party
Htant for reply and Judge Cox could ran around the house and was
make no reply while the questions caught by Spencer Clark, and tt
were being tired. But immediately proved lo be a negni woman. Tha
when Walter Park had finished man then came running from fhe
Judge Cox took the speakers stand other way. and Spencer Clark saw
and did answer the questions with- him and called to Mm to halt, aud
out auy equivocation. He explained when he turned to run in a differ-
the details of the case, except certain ent direction, fired at him, striking
features that could not he mention- j him in the hip. and when he ran up
«>d In the presence of ladles. His [to him he reoognlzed that it was Mr.
answer was full, unmistakable, and ] Jesse Zo-n, the owner of the house,
at rang. He then and there denounc- i v hose wife had gone to church. The
ed in vigorous and scathing language [ Clark's expressed great regret im-
this attempt to reflect upon his ju- jmediately, and said that it was an
riictal integrity. After Judge Cox awful mistake, that they thought if
had finished his reply a Urge num-jwas a burglar, and Mr. Zorn said:
her of the people present rushed up ' l am disgraced. I am ruined—I
to him to shake his hands and as- am to blame, you are not at fault
sure him of their confidence, sym- Go and get a doctor.” and while
liathy and support. | Spencer Clark held the negvo wom-
i Signed:) <’. 1C. Haddock. T. M. an and remained with him. Marlon
(Raclials, K. G. Phillips. R. U Had-'Clark ran into the Royal house and
•lock, R. E. Webb, W. W. Haddock, j (old them what had happened and
Jr., Jno. K. Stanton. W. E. Glhaon.lthen ran to town for the doctor. He
Z J- lsewls.” was met by Mr. Royal. to
‘ But as to the case 1 had Intend- whom he said: “We have made
•*d making a detailed statement from ] an awful mistake; we have done
the record and went to Ashburn to'something that wa would not have
gee the record but found that Mr. done (or anything in the world:
Walter Sumner, who has for a long run to the house and the folits will
time been prominently identified tel! you,” and when Mr. Royal got.
with the Congressman's cqndidacy, lo Mr. Zorn he was told by him th
during the v time that disposition thereof, or method of
Billows; andjwas familiar with it; and that he
'"new Diat the defendant was Inno j
cent, and could not understand why
he should be compelled to serve at
all. lie stated lo me that lie had an
uncle on the Pardoning Board, and
that he was going to write him, and
that, hq would also write the Gov
ernor, and lie wanted me also to
rite and recommend the granting
of a pardon. It was afterwards
and at the instance of this minister,
that Iwrote the Governor a letter
in which 1 detailed the facts ot the
case, and In this letter to him stat
ed that the persuasion that I
brought to bear upon the defendant
to Influence him to first agree to
enter the plea to a lesser offense
than murder was the only judicial
act that I had ever commited of
which I was ashamed. The Gover
nor wrote me a letter, of which f
hate no copy, but tny recollection is
that he slated In substance that It
was not enstomery fo grant pardons
vlthout first referring tiie matter to
the Pardoning Board, but that a»
I was the Judge that tried the case
and was familiar with it, if I rec
ommended tire pardon he would!
grant it, and t then wired the Gov
ernor to grant it without waiting
ou the Prison Commission. 1 had!
in mind, that uxoder the rules of
the Prison Commission Hie notice
of intention to apply for pardon had
to be first published thirty days be
fore the hearing, and there is never
any certainty as ta when a finding
of the Board will be made,, and' it
the defendant had been compelled
to have resorted to the customary
way of presenting this matter, he
would practically have served his
term before he woa4d have obtain-
?d the pardon.
Mr. Park wants know who- re
quested this pardon. So far as I
know, no one except the minister
and myself recommended it. and
we both did so because we thought
it was right. No scandal cat* attach
to this act. aud no fair man will
criticize it. The records are full of
instances where panions have been
granted under similar circumstan
ces.
As to inquiry about the number
of times Clark has been indicted, I
do not know, but several times I
'think. I am not called upon to de
fend his character, for no matter
how bad it may be, it has nothing
to do with this controversy.
Mr. Park also inquires if he is
not now under indictment for cow
stealing. The records do show that
such a bill was veturned at the April
term. 1916, of Mitchell Superior
Court. The records also show anoth
er bill against the same party,
charging him with simple larceny
:our yea
Judge Park was in office, and was
left pending by him, and which-was
transferred to the City Court of Ca
milla in 1911.
It is true that the people have the
right to know about a man’s official
record, but it is likewise true that
they have the right to demand that
there shall be decency and morality
in politics the same as in private
and official life.
The following is the telegram
;ent me by Rev. C. C. Davidson, the
minister above referred to:
Cuthbert, Oa„ Aug. 6th, 1916
Judge E. E. Cox,
Camilla, Ga.
As a minister, 1 do not mix in
politics, but my attention has been
cnlled to certain unfair criticism
against you in regard to the Spen
cer Clark case, and in behalf of
tiuth and honor, I make this state
ment: 1 witnessed the trial, and
am familiar with tile circumstances
and Die evidence. These proved
Clark killed the deceased in good
faith, believing him a negro bur
glar. and that he was protecting
his home and property. You stat
ed in court that you would do what
you could to secure his pardon, and
I not only requested you, but wrote
the Governor and the Prison Com
mission to do so also, as the evi
dence proved Clark innocent of
crime. The fight against * you is
unfounded and unjust.
C. C. DAVIDSON.”
And here I give you a. statement
by counsel representing the defend
ant:
“I was one of counsel for tne fte-
fendant, and do not believe it pos
sible that any attorney could have
heard this evidence and for a second
doubted the innocence of the defend
ant. We never knew of anything
to cause us to suspect that they
did not kill the deceased under the
belief that he was a fleeing burglar.
I am authorized to say that other
counsel for the defendant concur
with me in this statement. In my
judgment it would have been a vio
lation of the Judge’s judicial oath
to have let the verdict stood.
I know Judge Cox to be a fearless
and courageous and able Judge, and
never has he on any occasion in my
observation sought to play politics
from the bench, and throughout
this case, and all others in which
I have been connected, and of which
! have observed, he hau evidenced
no other motive than to discharge
his duty as he saw it, regardless of
the consequences. I have no en
mity against Judge Park, and f
have always hertofore been .fudge
Park's political friend and support
er, but when t see subtle insinua
tions against one whom I know spar
ed nothing to discharge his duty as
a man, I feel that the citizenry
should put a stop to it especially
when it affects the judiciary, and
one who has filled the judicial of
fice with such courage and satisfac
tion.
B. C. GARDNER.”
handling the same, to shake our ab
solute confidence in the uprightness
and judicial integrity of Judge Cox
in the premises, which confidence
•Xup siqt H)uu uasctuisnn sareutai
and after iuature reflection and
consideration of every possible an-
•asuu smi jo ai8
August II, 1916.
A. S. BUSSEY,
J. A, COMER.”
And the next following is a slate-
ment made by Hon. A. S. BusBey,
and Hon. J. A. Comer, who were
counsel for the State in the case:
"GEORGIA, Turner County:
The uaderslgued, A 3. Bussey
and J. A. Comer, in view of the crit
icism directed against Judge E. IS.
Cox, for his method of handling and
disposing of the case of the State
vs, Speneer Clark, charged with
murder of Jesse Zorn, aud tried in
Turner Superior Court, do voluntar
ily state, to-wit;
That were of counsel for the
State in said ca3e aiding the Solicitor
General R. C. Beil, aad are familiar
with the facta and circumstances
surrounding same, and the trial
thereof. That the case was a very
difficult one on the law. as applied
to the facts, and that counsel for
the State found it hard to find com
mon ground, of agreement in the
method of handling 3anve, arguing
same, and as to what kind of a ver
dict to ask for. The State present
ed the case as strongly as it wa3
sti [ in pesn pun os op oq o[qissod
witnesses and evidence; and that
the defense upon cross examination
of some of the State’s witnesses
fhiled to propound questions which
might have materially assisted the
denfer.se by eliciting a tine of defen
se which might have strongly ap
pealed to the jury. Upon the record
it is questionable if tne theory ofac-
cident is not as strongly sustained
as that of the guilt of the defendant
—and certainly honest minds could
differ and did differ thereon. Upon
the final disposition of the cake,
Judge Cox from the beach announc
ed his intention to recommend a par
don for the defendant, and it is
not conceivable that improper in
fluences couid have been brought to
bear, or would have operated up-on
him for an act which he so publlciy
aunounced his purpose to perform
And the following is an affidavit
of Dr. H. W. Harris, the attending
physician upon Mr. Zorn:
“GEORGIA, Turner County:
Now comes H. W. Havris, of said
State and County, and being first
sworn, deposes as follows, to-wit:
That upon the night of the
shooting of Jesse Zorn by Spencer
Clark, In Sycamore, Georgia, in
1911, that deponent was called by
the said Clark to attend said Zorn;
upon arrival at the Zorn premises
where Zorn lay wounded upon the
cround he found said Clark there
doing what, he could for said Zorn,
and deponent thinks no other per
son was then present, but it is pos
sible that Mr. C. L. Royal was then
there also: that during the first aid
attention to, and removal of the
said Zorn from the yard into his
house, said Clark was constantly by
aiding and assisting, and extremely
repentant of the deed, which he
styled an accident and expressed re
gret at the incident. That depon
ent upon bis arrival found said
Zorn upon the ground, when said
Zorn exclaimed in substance: ‘Do
something for me. Doctor: ‘ am
ruined: I am shot all to pieces; I
am disgraced; I brought it all on
myself; no one else is to blame.”
or words to that general effect and
purport. (Here certain things are
omitted because not proper to use
in public print.) —
That there was a negro woman
in the yard; that that same night I
had Zorn, on account of the serious
ness ot his wounds, removed on the
one ocloek A. M. train to the Ma
con Hospital, where he was further
treated and afterwards died. (Other
matter here omitted for the same
reason as stated above.) If any
statement herein contained, or other
or farther facts In my knowledge
were not testified to upon the tidal
of the case by me, it was due to the
fact that the questions of counsel in
the case were not so framed as to
elicit the same.
H. W- HARRIS, M. D.
Sycamore, Georgia.”
Sworn to and subscribed before
me. this the 14th day of August,
1916.
JOHN J. STORY, N. P.
Turner County, Ga.
And here a statement of Hon. M
A. Warren, who was acting Solici
tor under appointment of the court
at the time motion for new trial
was disposed of, Mr. Bell, the Soli
citor General, being at that time
confined iu a Hospital in Baltimore.
Mr. Warren is supporting Congress
man Park, because as he states, his
political obligation is to him. but
his first duty is to justice and truth,
and iu behalf of both this state
ment is made.
Camilla, Ga., Aug. 13, 1916.
“I was acting Solicitor General
in Turner Superior Court when the
motion for new trial in the Spencer
Clark case came on for hearing. At
the request of Judge Oox. who pre
sided at the trial when .the defend
ant was convicted, and who was then
presiding. I made a careful study of
the record in. that case, and stated
to Judge Coot tu private, and before
the hearing that in my opinion it
was extremely doubtful if the Su
preme Court would sustain a ver
diet for any offense, and certainly
not for the offense of murder, and
it is my recollection that I told the
Judge that if I were he I would
grant a new trial, and it was grant
ed with illy approbation. The State
had no evidence to contradict the
contention of the defendant that he
killed the deceased, believing him
to be a burglar.
Prior to the final hearing o>f the
case, Judge Cox stated to defend
ant's counsel that he would grant
a new trial in the case if the defend
ant would enter a plea of guilty to
involuntay manslaughter. Defend
ant’s counsel refused to do so, but
when the case was finally heard and
the motion for a r.ew trial was
granted, they then stated that they
would ener a plea of guilty for that
offense, and as acting Solicitor, I
recommended the acceptance of the
plea.
M. A. WARREN.”
Mr. Park now undertakes to make
it appear that he has not question
ed my judicial integrity with refer
ence to the Clark case, but he
knows that in this he does not state
the facts. The truth is that he has
by Honorable E B i
Uston, Georgia, ' t3 say 'J?
as several months
told him that I
and Dollars for
a X0. .M r
received n '
tecomni,
*ndi a -,
pardon and t hat the
me sent to m v w i fa . J '
con, Georgia. ' Nos , “ nt J <
Park, nor the Conare* r
question the veracitv 0 f 2*
and no other person that w*
will do so, and if this ta, 8
by Mr. Park denied, i w > .
tiute it by the statement ^
a dozen other reputable J?. j
throughout this section * ho *
tegrity the opposition will
tion, the same as they d .
question that ot Mr. Askew'
this is not all: i charge, and i i, I
it to be the truth, that Mr u,|
Park has been undertaking to , T
late a conspiracy against J
many months, looking to the hrtJ
Ing of discredit upon me *
make the election of his brother.
cure, and that in the effort he i
seen fit to employ every
My col
had tnk.'u this record from the same th;
stall'd before. Tnat pending
■>oparior Court
out
as a part of his judicial duty as he ( whispered slander against me about
saw it. That nothing occnred iu the this case and other things for
conduct of said case, or the final many months, and I aiu authorized
henchman in the District
in. Turner Cox. now in jail. i las
dertaken to conspire with hi
against me. and hi, violent opal
tion to me grows out of my reiuj
to permit certain gross irregm a |
ties which I do not care to disci
unless further railed upon to do7
My position in this matter ]
been one taken in behalf of da-
cy and right in behalf of law ;
justice, and out of resentment'
that which I have done, he is uni
taking to join hands with the
3ition to fight me,
That the people and all the
pie may know as to the charact!
of fight that is being
against me, and as to the extent th:
the opposition will go, I p,,b!i!
this statement, which speaks tor
Self. ~ ■>—.*» •» £ f j
“GEORGIA, Mitchell County;*'
“Personally appeared before th
undersigned, an officer of said Sta!
authorized by law to administa
oaths, ,T. A. Moree, who first heiu
duly sworn, deposes and say3:
That he is now confined and
work on the chaingang of «:
County. That prior to his being s:
t.enced to the chaingang. that
was confined in the common jail
Mitchell county. That shortly af
he was confined in said jail he nil
approached by T. IT. C'ox, who w
confined in said jail at the time ill
ponent was put in jail, the said '
U. Cox at the time asking depone:
about the Spencer Clark rase. Hi
stated to deponent that he had a lit
tle scheme, and that if he oouli
work it, that he would be able
get out of jail himself, and that lie
would see that deponent got out to
He stated to deponent that he ted
to get Judge Cox off of the bench
some way, and said that if I
scheme he had up his sleeve xori
ed alright, that he would put him
off of the bench, and stated to
deponent that if he would get an
davit from these Clark boys showing
that they paid Judge Cox soma
amount of money to get them oul
of the trouble they got into over
Turner county that it would throw
Judge Cox out of office, and that
this would give him a new trial. He
further stated to deponent that
he would get this affidavit from
these Clark hoys, that he
friend in Blakely and one in Cairo,
that would pay his fine in less than
forty-eight hours. Deponent at tins
time being anxious to get out of jail
told the said T.U. Cox that he would
do what he could. That shortly af
ter this, while both deponent and
T. (7. Cox were in said jail, Spencer
Clark was confined in said jail, and
deponent heard the said T. U. C' 1 *
tell Spencer Clark that if he would
make an affidavit to the effect that
Judge Cox received a certain amount
of money te get him out of trouble
over in Turner County, that ^ be
would get him one thousand dodars
to do this; and that this woub
throw Judge Cox out of office, au
that he would get a new trial.
His
J. A. (X) MOREE.
Mark.
Sworn to and subscribed befor
me, this the 14th day of A bU-'
1916.
J. J. WICKER, X. p - i
Mitchell County, Ga-
The qbove is my defease to vuo
slander that is brought against me
Ou Saturday last at Newton, in ^
address that I was then making. ^
stated to the Congressman t ' lu J r
my brother was whispering ’* J ,. n
against him as his is whisperings-
ier against me; 1 would
him, and I stated to the Cong.-
man that if he was the g° od a . ^
that I believed him to be, t:,a
would repudiate the tnsinua .0
that have been by his brother ^
and when the Congressman <a "‘\
reply, he failed, and failed 11
to rise to the situation an
the proper thing by rep '’' 1 ‘ a, '7-. j p.
slander, but contented hicise 1 ■
the statement that if —
(Continue on page Eive)