Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)