Newspaper Page Text
6
JUDGE JOHN T. PENDLETON
The campaign literature of Mr. Stephens, the opponent of
Hon. John T. Pendleton, is so rich in misstatements of facts and
improper appeals for votes that in the interest of truth, a reply
has been thought proper.
We regret the character of his Communications. Candi
dates for this high .judicial office should he considered solely
from the standpoint of merit. Demagogic clamor and false
pretenses should find no place in such a campaign.
He says “friends of Mr. Stephens prepared his folder.”
Who are they? Where are his indorsements? Why doesn't
some one besides himself say he is competent for the office ? Do
these “friends” have any existence in the flesh? If so, why is
it the folder does not give their names?
He states that Judge Pendleton was put out by a “back
room caucus.”
Is the man who deliberately wrote that statement, with a
full knowledge of the facts, a proper man to elect to this office?
What Are the Facts?
Two years ago he wanted to be Judge of the Superior Court,
and intimated he would make the race against Hon. George L.
Bell, who had demonstrated his industry, character, ability and
experience as a Judge. A petition was instantly and publicly
circulated which was promptly and voluntarily signed by 95
per cent of the bar. asking Judge Bell to run. ami pledging him
the support of the signers.
Mr. Stephens then suggested that he would make the race
against Judge NV. D. Kilis, who had likewise demonstrated his
industry, character, ability and experience. Again 95 per cent
of the total bar promptly and enthusiastically indorsed Judge
Ellis, requesting him to make the race, and pledging their sup
port.
Recently he announced that he would likely make the race
against Judge John T. Pendleton. Again there was an im
mediate. active, earnest, universal protest on the part of the bar;
again a petition was prepared requesting Judge Pendleton to
make the race, and pledging him their active support.
When it became definitely known that Mr. Stephens would
run. a meeting in behalf of Judge Pendleton was called, and
the call was published in ’l’he Atlanta Journal, 'l’he Atlanta
Georgian and The Pulton Daily Report. A hall was obtained
and an hour set. I’he widest possible publicity was given to
the fact that the meeting would be held. It was held in an
open hall where all white men friendly to the candidacy of
Judge Pendleton were invited through three daily papers to
he present, At that Public Meeting, a large and representa
tive body of citizens gathered for active work, and appointed
an executive and general campaign committee.
It was a “caucus” only in the sense that every Trade, Pro
fession and Business Interest in the County was enthusiastical
ly represented. It was “secret” in the sense that it was ad
vertised to the world.
Mr. Stephens knew these facts when lie wrote the folder
which reiterates the charge of a “back-room caucus.” And his
statements are incorrect, made to the public with full knowledge
of their incorrectness, and furnish ample evidence that a better
man for the office can be easily selected.
He says that “a few partisan lawyers interested in pend
ing litigation” are supporting Judge Pendleton. All the law
yers representing both sides of practically all pending cases are
supporting Judge Pendleton. Has Mr. Stephens ever offered,
as evidence ol his ability, the written statement of a single law
yer or client? Has he ever exhibited the written request of a
single member of the Atlanta Bar that he should make the race?
Why is it the three hundred lawyers who know how the
office has been conducted are solidly supporting Judge Pendle
ton?
No one contends for an instant that the bar has the right
Albert E. Mayer.
T C. Waters
Thomas B Brown,
J W. English,
B M Blount,
C T. Ladson.
11. L (Iraves.
Fred Pax on,
WHIP M Everett.
W L. Peel.
Charles i 11 «pkins,
E. <’ Stewart.
j A Branch.
Dr W. S. Goldsmith,
Jack J. Spalding,
Royal Daniel.
Edward R. Austin,
J IL Ewing.
1 E Radensleben,
Meh Wilkinson,
Ben J Conyers.
Dr E L Connally,
E I’ Thomas.
Dr. W s Elkin,
lack Wilson.
W Floyd Johnson,
W .! Tilson.
‘’has D McKinney,
se M Wood,
• L Slay son
I jgene IHrkf> ,
1. W. Thomas,
k. ,4
C I. Pettigrew.
E X Angier.
Eugene M Mitchell,
C. .1. Simmons.
Peter E Smitl
H. I. ‘ ’ulbersuii,
R E. Church.
Gordon I Mitchell,
ll.rl.cn I Haas
i V P..oh'_
Charles XX Smith.
.1 Howell Gleeti.
Ila i\ ey Ila tchei.
Eel lx Cuinp.
Mark Bolding
E. V Cartel Jt
XMine < ’haml- t <
X A Moser
W. H Torrell
Walter t>. Mat shlHii i,,
H a Alexa inlet
I A Watson. Jt .
\ c Broom.
W A James.
Leonard Haas
\X alter Nh Elreath,
C X Stokes
Earl Sims.
R S Sal Told,
Shelby Smith
Georg, s Low mt* -
J 1. Sims.
T G. Russel.
li E Stockbridge,
i B McConnell.
<’ha*« F. Barnwell,
i R. Nutting.
R L I lope.
Floyd W M< Rue.
John s Spalding.
• L Murph v.
Henry llillyer,
Ross Sims.
Tims. I I Day.
I I Ednmtidson.
’ laivnce Bell
Prompton E Ellis.
Edward T Brown,
Hu w kins Randolph.
Roht s. Parker.
Hugh M Scott.
R J Guinn.
I- r» d I I’axon.
Stilps Hopkins,
c T. Unison.
X ' Meyer.
XX altei A Siin«.
B F Burdette
Xrthur Thurman.
Xsa \\ Candler.
Fred S« hr mp-r.
’ X Hum.
’••Im S Spalding.
la*mar Hill,
’ Fili ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS. MONDAY. AUGUST 19. 1912.
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Harry Silverman,
Lowry Arnold,
I Carrull Payne,
xiarh.n lackson,
B XX T\ e.
E R Black.
Winfield P Jones,
i: \ Neel y.
Ben I Phillip"'.
Xitlyn B Moore.
Xlvx W Smith,
R A. Friedson,
E S Croft,
T J Ripley.
XX H L<‘wis.
’tumuel I » Hewlett,
P H Xlston.
E Zachory Arnold,
lluirison Jones.
James W Mason.
XX ’ Brantley . Jr.,
Harold Hirseh.
I, E McClelland,
lohn X* Smith.
Henderson Hallman.
!«»hn XV Moore.
1 x Dodgen
XX E Suttles.
’anti 'I. Kex .
Carl N <' ipss.
lohn E Meth v tn,
Ely ssvs Smith,
to elect the Judge; no one pretends that the voters are bound
by their indorsement.
But it is contended that they have a right to bear testimony
to the public with reference to the fitness of one and the unfitness
of the other, and that this evidence should be considered bv the
public for what it is worth. Is the testimony of a locomotive
engineer, who has spent his life in that work, worth nothing
when it comes to the qualifications of another engineer? Is
the testimony of a reputable, competent surgeon worth nothing
upon the question of whether another surgeon is a competent
and an efficient operator? Are merchants not competent to
testify as to the quality of the goods they deal in?
Nou are asked to consider the testimony of these lawvers
in precisely the same way you would consider the testimony of
other men about things connected with their own trades or
business.
Speaking of Testimony as to Competency
\\ hat evidence does Mr. Stephens offer that he is qualified
to till this office?
Judge Pendleton was Recorder, Assistant Citv Attorney,
and general practitioner for many years. He was one of the
most consistently active ami successful legal advocates the At
lanta Bar ever knew. He had plenty of cases, big cases—he had
cases all the time and not some of the time- because— he was
honest, industrious, able, skillful, signally competent— because
—he know what to do, knew how to do i.t and did it intelligently
and forcefully.
What About the Legal Experience
of Mr. Alex. W. Stephens?
He says he l\as practiced law for “fifteen years.” Did von
ever see him in the Court I louse ? Did you ever, as ,»artv. wit
ness. juror, or spectator, see him try any case ? Did you ever
hear of his having a. case?
An examination of the last ten volumes of the Supreme
Court Reports discloses his name in but two cases.
One was a criminal case in which his client was promptly
found guilty and promptly hung.
The other was a civil case involving about $150.09. which
he promptly lost in the lower Court and promptly lost again
in the Supreme < 'ourt.
Eour points were made in the bill of exceptions. The < 'ourt
declined to consider two of them because they were not made
in the manner the law required.
Has he had any judicial experience?
He was appointed Auditor in the case of Noles vs. Jones
Mercantile Company, now pending in Eulton Superior Court.
He took the Auditor's oath on March 21st, 1911. He tried the
case as Judge in April. 1911. The case involved $684.20. On
April 12. 1912. just one year after the trial was concluded, the
plaintiff tiled a rule against him asking the Superior Court
to force him to decide the case. A rule was issued by Judge
George L. Bell calling on him to show cause vvhv he had not
decided the ease. He filed an answer which stated, in part,
that the questions involved were difficult for him to determine
and asked to be released of his appointment as auditor.
What do you think of that? Did you ever, in your life,
hear of a rule being issued to make a Judge decide a case?
If he couldn't reach a conclusion in twelve months in one
case involving $684.20. when would he be able to decide the
numerous cases in Eulton Superior Court involving from ten
to twenty millions each year?
The Superior Court can force an Auditor to decide a case.
But there is no Court which can force a Superior Court Judge l
to do so. and if he was on the* Superior Court Bench he would
be beyond the reach of corrective relief.
If Mr. Stephens has had sufficient judicial experience—
If Mr. Stephens has had sufficient legal experience—
John Clay Smith,
M Herzberg.
Clifford L Xn<iers.»n.
I • W Rount it e.
lames L. Anderson.
E A Hooper.
J XI Terrell.
II I. Luttrell
I>ax id Eichbet g.
Edward I Meyer.
John A Hoy kin.
r.' L Douglas.
E V t'at ter.
H \\ Dent.
H B Troinniuii.
James T Wright.
Thomas L Bishop.
Erank L Haralson.
T B Felder,
C G. Wilson,
B A Lovvorn.
F E Callow ax.
XX W Visanska.
• ’ B Reynolds,
Ernest Konts,
\\ I’nderxvood.
Alvin L Richards,
’••bn A Hynds.
XX R Hammond.
Paul E Johnson.
Samuel X Boorsttn,
Geo. B Rush.
II C> Holbrook,
. Hudson Moore.
W. W Hood.
R H Harris.
Courtland S XX inn,
\x D Ellis. Jr .
•*h irlea B Shelton,
lohn K McDonald. Jr .
Rox I »«>rsex.
M F. Goldstein.
Lilian S (’uambei s.
X E \\ ilson,
E XX Born
Xlex XX Smith. Jr .
W illiam A \\ imbish,
lames L Maxson,
Marion Smith.
Thomas J. L*xvis.
J A Fisher.
I. D. Thomas.
Marion M Jackson,
C B Rossel. Jr .
< H. Cox.
H L Pairx
Morris Macks,
lames I Ragan.
Waltei R Dale.
Robert <’ Vision,
XX D Thompson,
ShfpaMl Btxan,
XX' P. Bloodworth,
John S Candler,
Herbert A Sago,
A. M Brand,
J. E McClelland.
I R Burress.
R. R Shropshire.
Howell C la w in.
I.aw ton Nallex.
Paul I. Lindsay.
Ah>n/.o Field.
I .oxx ndt's (t 'otitiall \ .
Tinney XX' Rucker.
• I Moore.
John D Little.
I l. Barge.
V-an.x Bachelor,
T B Higdon,
Roger Boyd.
Nathan Copelan,
Elliott Cheatham.
Lowndes Calhoun.
R Crenshaw.
A H Davis.
XX C Da vis.
XV s Dillan.
Harry I »odd.
E H Frazer
XX XX* Gaines.
R F Gllllatn.
George H Gtllon,
<»eurge Gordan,
P Goree, *
E. <». I lorton,
M. c. Horton,
D K. Johnson,
Robert 11. Juries. Jr.,
M I’. McWhorter,
George M .N’a|4et.
XX I-. Phillips.
\ Riley, Jr..
E A. Stephens,
George \\ . Stephens.
I B Stuart.
E Marvin I’ndetwood.
George P. Whitman
t ieorge \\ estmoreland.
C. M Yeates.
Xrthur Heyman.
T. C. Battle.
G. H Cornwell, ,
S. C Crane.
!•’ x Quillian,
J W Bachman,
H XV Jones.
I H Porter,
lohn x\’ Cox.
\ C Corbett.
Charles ’ Moore,
lames E XXarrcn.
Pa ul I »oneho.»
G A K Stevens,
Then Where Did He Get It?
He says Judge Pendleton is a “chronic office seeker.”
It is true he was City Recorder. Incidentally, he made a
very tine officer.
It is true he was ('ity Attorney. Incidentally, he made one
of the best legal advisers the city ever had.
It is true he was appointed Judge of the Superior Court,
without solicitation upon his part, when Judge Lumpkin was
placed on the Supreme Court. Incidentally, he is one of the best
trial Judges in Georgia.
it is further true he has been twice indorsed, since then,
by the people.
The people appear to be as well satisfied with his admin
istration as the lawyers.
But. Mr. Stephens, what about your record as a “chronic
office seeker?”
You ran for Justice of the Peace.
You ran for City Recorder.
You ran for Solicitor of the Criminal Court of Atlanta.
You ran for the Legislature from this County.
Were you ever elected to any office?
% Isn't your appetite for office both varied and voracious?
Indorses a Negro
On, December 2. 1904. Mr. Stephens indorsed a negro poli
tician for admission to the bar. He had a legal right to do this
if .it met his personal tastes and inclinations, just as Mr. Wick
ersham had the right to indorse the negro Lewis for member
ship in the American Bar Association.
But a negro lawyer is distasteful to ninety-nine per cent
of all jurors, parties, witnesses and lawyers.
Mr. Stephens was either so constituted as to be ignorant of
this fact, or knowing it, was indifferent as to the feelings of the
people.
A Judge of the Superior Court ought to both know and be
keenly alive to the results of his acts.
His exercise of a legal right to indorse a negro for admis
sion was an act not calculated to facilitate the even, efficient
operation of the legal machinery.
Mr. Stephens stated at the East Point meeting that Judge
Pendleton, as Administrator of the Collier estate, had brought
a suit in the Superior ('ourt against certain parties when this
case should have been brought in the City Court, the intimation
being that Judge Pendleton was seeking the influence of the
Superior Court in the decision.
I his statement reflects no credit upon Mr. Stephens. Judge
Pendleton, was named by the ('oilier heirs as Administrator of
their (‘state, and appointed Administrator before he was se
lected as Judge of the Superior Court. This estate has never
been wound up. and Judge Pendleton is still the Administrator
and no right to sue exists in behalf of any one except Judge
Pendleton as Administrator. 'l’he suit was one which required
equitable relief. It could be brought only in the Superior Court.
The suit was tiled and the process issued in the name of one of
the other Judges. Judge Pendleton is pot qualified to try that
ease, and no one with the slightest intelligence would ever in
timate that' he did propose to try the case.
Either Mr. Stephens made the statement to produce an
entirely improper impression, or he did not know that a peti
tion seeking equitable relief had to be filed exclusively in the
Superior Court.
Is he. in either event, the best man for this position?
The selection of a Judge for this office is far a wav and be
yond all partisan politics.
This Judgeship is of more importance than the ambitions
of any one man. It affects home, property, liberty. life.
It is important to go slow, consider carefully—and get the
right man.
□
J. D. Kilpatrick, Chairman.
L Z Rosser. Jr.
P IL Brewster.
William S. Thomson,
C. Munday .
Edmund XX'. Martin.
Joseph XX'. Humphries,
\\ C Cousins,
XX . W' Tindali,
il A Ethridge.
John I». Hunii»hries.
I II Dodgen.
William IL Wilbers,
Malvern Hill.
Lucien Harris.
’Tull C Waters.
R. R Arnold.
Carlos H. Mason,
Aarnes L. Key.
Hudson Moore.
C I Sullivan.
I A Noyes.
E. E. Pomeroy.
James W. Austin.
Paul S Etheridge,
XV. < r Wilson.
F’hiliji Weltner.
Joseph D Greene.
<’a m 1 ’ I Jersey,
E H “Barnett
X E Ramseur.
Robert P. Jones,
Spencer R Atkinson,
W E. Suttles.
R J. Jordan.
J. J. Hastings.
Ronald Ransom.
James K. Hines.
Stiles Hopkins.
S C. Williams.
J. S. McClelland.
T. <>. Hathcock
Frank L. Neutville,
Albert Boylston.
Daniel McDougal,
T J. Buchanan.
Morris Btandon.
H M. Patty.
Waller G Cooper,
I H Gilbert.
Edgar Watkins,
Floyd Mcßae
P C. McDuffie,
A D. Adair.
M A Hale.
J ; A Fisher,
X' x Kreigshaber,
William A Fuller.
G H. Fausee
S N Evins.
’Tom Egleston.
L C. Hopkins,
s B Turman.
x H Ranrker.
<it oi m Hrown.
J. S. Slicer.
Charles Nunnally.
I. McSwain Wood.
E. P. Me Burney.
Walter T. Colquitt,
John Eagan,
L Z Rosser.
Sig Pappenheimor,
J F West brook,
XX H. Harrison.
Hughes Spalding.
'Thomas J Lewis.
Albert Thornton,
w'. g. Whisehuni,
Alex C. King.
D. M G. Campbell.
R B. Blackburn.
J. M Hallowell.
Ebb p. ( pshaw.
Emile Breltenbucher,
C J. Sullivan.
Reuben R. Arnold.
Gordon N' Hurt el.
Harvey Hill.
Xrmlnius Wright.
John L Tve.
Sanders McDaniel,
H c Peeples.
S J Sheffield.
Charles R Clark. Ir.,
Lee M lordan.
T P We-itnmreland,
John Nf Slaton,
Eb T. Williams,
Claude C. Smith,
L F. Golightly,
Burton Smith.
John XV. Moore,
Harrison Jones,
George C. Middlebrooks
E R. Bla< k,
John L. Edmondson,
H. M. Patterson,
Harvey Johnson.
Joseph H Leavitt,
J W Goldsmith,
t’lyde Haynes.
A. W Earl in ger,
R A Hemphill
Smith & Tompkins,
George Adair.
G H. Brandon.
M Levin,
Dr E Hates Block,
Fred Patterson,
W S. Byck.
John J. Woodside.
Clarence Haverty.
John F. McWaters,
XX H Atkins
Marcellus Anderson.
E c. Crichton.
Marcus Loeb.
H C Black,
w N T. Nelma.
«. James L Dickey,