Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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,