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 Hud no place in such a campaign. De 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 ? I)o 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.” V 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? I wo years ago he wanted to be .1 udge of t he Superior Court, and intimated he would make the race against Hon. George L. 8011, 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 rent of the bar. asking Judge Bell to run, and pledging him the support of the signers. Mr. Stephens thru suggested that he would make the race against Judge \\. I). Ellis, who had likewise demonstrated his industry, character, ability and experience. Again 95 per cent of the total l>ar promptly and enthusiastically indorsed Judge Ellis. requesting him to mak< 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 1 he 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 ol Judge Pendleton was railed, and the call was published in The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian and The Eulton Daily Report. A hall was obtained and an hour set. Ihe widest possible publicity was given to the fact that the meeting would be held. It was held in an open hall where all white num friendly to the candidacy of Judge Pendleton were invited through three dailv papers to be present, Al that Public Meeting, a large and representa tive body of citizens gathered for active work, and appointed an execiitiyc and general campaign committee. It yvas a “caucus” only in the sense that every Trade, Pro fession and Business Interest in the County yvas enthusiastical ly represented. It was “secret” in the sense that it was ad vertised to the world. Mr. Stephens knew these facts when he wrote the folder which reiterate." the charge ol a “back-room caucus.” Ami his statements are incorrect, made to the public yvith 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 pond ing litigation” are supporting Judge Pendleton. All the law yers representing both sides ol practically all pending cast's art* supporting Judge Pendleton, lias Mr. Stephens over offered, as evidence <>t his ability, the written statement of a single law yer or client? Has he ever <*xhibit<*<l the yvritten 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 <-ontends 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. La'lson. IL L Graves Fred Paxon. Willis M. Everett, W. L. Peel, Charles r. Hopkins, 12. <’ Stewart J A. Branch, Dr. W. S. Goldsmith, Jack .1. Spalding. Royal Daniel. Edward R Austin, J. H. Ewing. F. E Radensleben, Mell Wilkinson. Hen J Conyers Dr. E L Connally , E. !• Thomas. Dr W S. Elkin. Jack Wilson. W Floyd Johnson. W. J Tilson. < ‘has D M« Kinney. Jesse M Wood. J L Maysot Eugene Dlr bey, L W. Thomas, C L. Pettigrew. E A Angier. Eugene M Mitchell, 1 ’ I Simmons, Peter F. Smith. H. L I’ulberson. R E <*hur<-h. Gordon e \i u hell, Herbert .1 Haus J. V Poole. Charles W Smith. J Howel! Gr**cn. Harvey Hatcher. Felix Camp, Mark Holding. E. \ ’“art er. .It Aldine Charnb«’s. A. A Meyer. W H Terrell Walter ’ • Marslihim., H X \lexande’. J A Watson, li . A C Broom. W \ James. Leonard Haa- Walter Me El true ’“ A Stnkes Earl Sims, R S Saftold. Shelby Smit* Georgr S L”wn<|e . J L Sima. T G. Russel. H E St ock bridge, J B. McConnell, ’’has F Barnwell. J R Nutting. R L. Hopp. Floyd W Mcßae. John S Spahi i ng, J L Murphy. Henry Hlllyer. Ross Sims. Thos J F. Day. J L. Edmondson, ’’larence Bell. Fromptnn E. Ellis. Edward J’ Brown, Hawkins Randolph. Rohl S Parker. Hugh M Scott, R 1 Guinn. Fred J Paxon. Stiles Hopkins. <’ T la*<ls«»n. \ A Meyer Waller A Sims, B F Burdette. Arthur Thurman. W <andler. Fred Schrlmpcr, I X Hunt. J'J s Sp.iiiting. Umar Hill, THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS. MONDAY. AVGUST Is. 1912. CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Hurry Silverman, Lowry Arnold. J Car roll Payne, Mari»*n Jackson, B W I've. E R. Black. W'infield P Joins, E A Neely. P.en J Phillips, V ill'll B Moore. Alex W Smith. R A Friedson, E S Croft. T J. Ripley. W H Samuel D Hewlett, P H Xlston, E Zachery Arnold, Harrison Jones. James W Mason. XX J Brantley. Ir.. Harold Hirsch. L F McClelland, John V Smith. Henderson Hallman, John W Moore, ’ x Dodge n W E Sul»les James I. Key. Carl N Guess. John F Meihvin, I ly ss< s 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 hear testimony to the public yvith 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 lias spent his life in that work, worth nothing yvhen it comes to the qualifications of another engineer? Is the testimony of a reputable, competent surgeon worth nothing upon the question of yvhether 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? ) You are asked to consider the testimony of these law vers in precisely the same way you would consider the testimony of other men about things connected yvith their oyvn trades or business. Speaking of Testimony as to Competency What evidence does Mr. Stephens offer that he is qualified to till this office? Judge Pendleton yvas Recorder, Assistant City Attorney, and general practitioner for many years. He was one of the most consistently active and successful legal advocates the At lanta Bar ever kneyv. He had plenty of cases, big cases—he had eases all the time and not some of the time— because— fie yvas honest, industrious, able, skillful, signally competent— because —he kneyv yvhat to do, kneyv how to do it and did it intelligently and forcefully. What About the Legal Experience of Mr. Alex. W. Stephens? He says he has practiced law for “fifteen years.” Did von ever see him in the Court House ? Did you ever, as partv, wit ness. juror, or spectator, see him try any case? Did you ever hear of his having a An examination of the last ten volumes of the Supreme Court Reports discloses his nan if in but two cases. One yvas a criminal case in which his client yvas promptly found guilty and promptly hung. The other yvas a civil case involving about $150.00, yvhich he promptly lost in the loyver Court and promptly lost again in the Supreme <knirt. Pour points were made in the bill of exceptions. The Coubt declined to consider two of them because they yvere 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, noyv pending in Eulton Superior Court. He took the Auditor’s oath 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 filed a rule against him asking the Superior Court to force him ter decide the case. A rule was issued by Judge George L. Bell calling on him to shoyv cause yvhy he had not decided the case. He tiled an answer yvhich stated, in part. I 1 that the questions involved yvere 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 ease? II he couldn t reach a conclusion in fyvelve months in one case involving $684.20, yvhen 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 1 an Auditor to decide a case. But there is no Court yvhich can force a Superior Court Judge to do so, and if he yvas on the Superior Court Bench he yvould 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 Xmlers »n. D. W Rountree. James L Anderson, F A. Hooper. .1 M Terrell. H L Luttrell. David Eichberg. Edward L Meyer, John A Boykin. E L. Douglas. E X Carter, 11. \\ Dent. H B Troutman. James ’l’. Wright. Thomas L Bishop. Frank L Haralson. i C. G Wilson. B A Lovvorn. F E Calloway, XV. W X’isanska, C H Reynolds, Ernest Kuntz. • ’ w Underwood. Xlvln L Richards, John \ Hynd*. XX R Hammond, I'a ul E lohnson. burnuel \ Boorstin. Geo B Rush, IL c Holbrook. . Hudson Moore, \\ W. Hood. R. II Harris Courtland S. W inn. W D. Ellis. Jr.. Charles B. Shell..n. John K McDonald. Jr.. Roy Dorsey. M F. Goldstein. Julian S t’aanibeis. A E Wilson. E W Born. \’r\ W > ' William \ W unbish, lames L May son. Marion Smith. Thomas J. Lewis. J. X Fisher. I . I». Thomas. Marton XI lacks*.n, (' B Rosser. Jr. ’• H Cox. H L Parry. Morris Ma* ks, lames I Ragan. Walter R Dale Robert <’ Xlst.»n. W I ‘ Thompson, Shepard Bryan, XX’ P. Bloodworth, John S Candler, Herbert A. Sage. A M Brand, J E. McClelland. I R. Burress, R R. Shropshire. Howell C. Erwin. Lawton Nalley. I‘aul L. Lindsay. Alonzo Field, Lowndes C. Connally, Tinney W Rucker. J L Moore, John D Little. J > Barge. Xan x Bachelor, T H Higdon. Roger Boyd. Nathan Copelan. Elliott Cheatham. Lowndes Calhoun, R W Crenshaw. A H Davi'j. XX’ C Davis, w S Dillon. Harry Dodd. F H Eraser XX W’ < latnes. R E Gilliam. George H Glllon, George Gordan, C. P Goree. E <>. Horton. M. C Horton, D K Johnson. Robert H. Jones. Jr., M P. McWhorter. George M. Napier, XV. I- Phillips, • C. Riley. Jr., E A. Stephens. . George \\ Stephens. J. B Stuart. E. Marvin Underwood, George P Whitman George Westmoreland, c Xl Yeates. Arthur Heyman, T C Rattle. G H Cornwell. S C Crane. F. A Quillian. 1 \X* Bat hman, H w Jones. J H Porter. John W Cox. \ C Corbett.' •‘buries J Moore. .Rimes E Warren. Paul D«'tv hno, G A K Stc'chs. Then Where Did He Get It? He says Judge Pendleton is a “chronic office seeker.” It is true he yvas City Recorder. Incidentally, he made a very fine officer. It is true he was City Attorney. Incidentally, he made one of the best legal advisers the city ever had. It is true he yvas appointed Judge of the Superior Court, without solicitation upon his part, yvhen Judge Lumpkin yvas 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 he as yvell satisfied yvith 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. on ran* for Solicitor of the Criminal Court of Atlanta. \ on ran for the Legislature from this County. Wefe you ever elected Io any office? Isn't jour appetite for office both varied and voracious? I Indorses a Negro On December 2. 1904, Mr. Stephens indorsed a negro poli tician lor 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, yvitnesses and layvvers. Mr. Stephens yvas either so constituted as to be ignorant of this fact, or knowing it, yvas 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 yy as an act not calculated to facilitate the even, efficient operation of the legal machinery. Mr. Stephens stated at the East Point meeting thht Judge Pendleton, as Administrator of the Collier estate, had brought a suit in the Superior Court against certain parties when this case should have been brought in the City Court, the intimation being that Judge Pendleton yvas seeking the influence of tiie Superior Court in the decision. I his statement reflects no credit upon Mr. Stephens. Judge Pendleton yvas named by the Collier heirs as Administrator of their estate, and appointed Administrator before he yvas se lected as Judge of the Superior Court. This estate has never been yvound up, and Judge Pendleton is still the Administrator ami no right to sue exists in behalf of any one except Judge Pendleton as Administrator. The suit was one which required equitable relief. It could be brought only in the Superior Court, 'rhe suit was filed and the process issued in the name of one of the.other Judges. Judge Pendleton is not qualified to try that case, 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 hot knoyv 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. I’. 11. Brewster. William S. Thomson, W. C. Munday. Edmund W. Martin. Joseph W. Humphries, W . C. Cousins. W W. Tindall. 11. A. Ethridge. John D Humphries. J H. Dudgen. William H XX’ithers. Malvern Hill. Lucien Harris. ’l’u 11 C. Waters. R. R Arnold. Carlos TL Mason, James L. Key. Hudson Moore. C J Sullivan. J A Noyes. E. E. Pomeroy, lames W Austin, Paul S Etheridge. W' • ‘ XX’ilson. Philip Weltner. Joseph D Greene, ’am D Dnrsey. E H Barnett X E Ramseur Robert P lonrs. Spent tr R Atkinson, XX' E. Suttles, R. J. Jordan, J. J. Hastings. Ronald Ransom. James K. Hines. Stiles Hopkins. S. C. Williams. J. S. McClelland, T. O. Hathcock. . Frank L. Neufville, Albert Boylston. Daniel McDougal. T. J Buchanan. Morris Brandon, H M. Patty. Walter G. Cooper, J 11. Gilbert. Edgar Watkins. Floyd Mcßae. P. c McDuffie, A D. Adair. M A. Hale. •L A Fisltfu. X' A Kreigsha her, William X. Fuller, G. H Fausee, S. N Evins. Tam Egleston. L <’ Hopkins. S R Turman. A H Hancker. George Xf Brown, J. S. Slicer. Charles Nunnally. I. McSwain Wootl. E. P. Mcßurney. Walter T. Colquitt, John Eagan, L. Z. Rosser. Sig Pappenheimor, J F. Westbrook. IL Harrison. Hughes Spalding. Thomas J. Lewis. Albert Thornton. W. (j. Whlsehunt, Alex c. King. D. M. G. Campbell. R. B. Blackburn. J. M. Hollowell. Ebb P. Upshaw. Emile Breitenbucher, r I Sullivan. Reuben R. Arnold. < Jordon N. Hurt el. Harvey Hill. Arminius XX’right. John L. Tye. Sanders McDaniel. H c. Peeples. S J Sheffield. Charles R Clark. Jr., Lee M lordan. T P Westmoreland, John M Slaton. Eb T. Williams. Claude C. Smith, I. F. Golightly. Burton Smith. John W. Moore, Harrison Jones, George C. Middlebrooks. E. R. Black, John L. Edmondson, 11. M. Patterson, Harvey Johnson. Joseph H. Leavitt. •I XV. Goldsmith, Clyde Haynes. A. XX'. Farlinger. H. A. Hemphill. Smith *<’ Tompkins, <>eorge Adair. G. H. Brandon, M. Levin. Dr. E. Bates Block. Fred Patterson, XX'. s. Byck, John J. Woodside, Clarence Havertv. John F MeWaters, XX’ H. Atkins. Marcellus Anderson. E < Crichton, Marcus Loeb. R c Black. \x nt 5 ' elms. James L. Dickey,