Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About The Columbia sentinel. (Harlem, Ga.) 1882-1924 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 5, 1921)
2 m SENTINEL. Issued Every Monday at Thomson, Ga. — Entered in Post Office at Thomson, Ga., as Second Class Matter, Under Act of March 3, 1897. SUBSCRIPTION 52.00 PER YEAR ; when sent in clubs of five S7.5U —, RATES TO NEWSDEALERS— Three cehts each, cash to accompany order. Thomson address of The Columbia Sentinel P. 0. Box 393. THOS. E. WATSON, Editor. ALICE LOUISE LYTLE. Managing Editor. — Thomson, Georgia, Dec. 5, 1921. Detroit. Michigan, has at least one pastor who reads the papers: he goes on record as saying “prohibition is a piece of hypocricy.” # # * More and more the idea seems to he spreading, that the “Arms Parley” was a very expensive junket for some nations have financed. After reading some of the recipes longevity ' and “slender lines,” we pass all up. We’d rather be comfortable, than long-lived or thin. * « * * China may he like some little children: find out when she gets all the things she is in¬ sisting on the Powers granting, she won’t what to do with them. # # # # Isn’t it about time that those “little fin gers of the Belgian babies 1 1 whieh we had sworn to protect, should take their places the fists of the rest of the world? Somebody the*remarks should invent an eraser, for in Congress. The de mand presently from the “constits.” will he for unexpurgated issues of the Record. * * * * Thoge lucky guys who are being appointed Envoys to foreign countries by 1’resident Harding, should thank him sweetly for sol v ing the problem of their Christmas givings. # # , « % The large, doughnut shaped medal goes the husband, thirty-one years old, who is" seeking a divorce from his sixty-eight year old wife; he married her while a boarder at her house “to help cut down her expenses.” * * # # Russia has always been a hog when it came to anything slip wanted. Her executive bod} - —corresponding to our Senate—-numbers three hundred members, and this means three hundred opportuities to scrap, and form a government. • # • • Next to not being able to understand Milwaukee French that was spoken 1o him, Marsha] Foche will have his greatest difficulty in getting by the bill-of-fnre French in the average hotel, in America. # # # # Critics refer to a play named “The Dog,” as a very disagreeable play. Naturally one would infer that, from the title, but play wrights, like the sponsors of Pullman cars. must run out of names some time. n When a President’s home town against him, it looks as though that president’s policies were not pleasing to his people. that was one of the w inders of the recent elections, Marion, Ohio, going Democratic. * * Wuxtra! The only safe wav to stop a runaway horse, according to the stunt pulled off by a New York policeman, is: bite the am mal on 6bo ear and hit him in the eve. It worked, and a lot of little children were'saved. # # # * The Japanese envoy to the Conference doesn’t like the American news paper idea at all. He put the Japanese respondents on notice that Japan would settle tier questions- without the aid of the nows papers. * ♦ • • Of course the idea may not be worth nnieli; but I would suggest that the Newberry Ford matter might be settled by cutting both out of 1bc controversy, and making the people Michigan hold another election for Statos Senator, tin* best man to win. i*t ik * Mr. Woodrow W ikon is quoted as saying, on Thanksgiving Day that “ another war will soon be upon us.” Maybe so; but at least lot us hope that, if it is Ol R war, we will tight it on our own land. If it is to he a war of anoth er nation, let’s keep hands offhand our boys at home. A. I-j. when you want your paper changed, give both the old and the new address. The change cannot be made without both addresses. THE COLUMBIA SENTINEL, THOMSON, GEORGIA Editorial Notes. (By Grover C. Edmondson.) For more than twenty years the Berry Schools, of Floyd comity, Georgia, which had their genesis in a hut by a mountain roadside, have done a work long neglected by the State school authorities ; and during those years, hundreds and thousands of mountain boys and girls were prepared to light the battles of life; and it should be remembered that Miss Berry, the founder of the Berry Schools, begged from Maine to California, in churches, Sunday schools, and public meetings, for contributions to support her noble work, and she brought this money to Georgia and used it to educate Georgia boys and girls. 1902, Her first school was established in to provide industrial education for poor boys from the rural sections of the mountains. Later, she established a school for girls. Miss Berry, finding both schools suceess ful, saw an opening for a “Mountain School” for smaller children. She had begun this labor of love in a little Sunday-school, and this soon developed into a day school, and her work broadened into one of tlie finest institutions in Dixieland, kindling an ambition in thousands of young folks who had been neglected bv Georgia and who would not have received a chance in life it Miss Berry had not made it possible for them to enter her schools. Miss Berry has permitted hundreds of | boys and girls to work their way through. denied none. Those who were able to pay, she charged a tuition tee only big enough to cover board, tuition, laundry, medical atten¬ tion, watei\ heat, and lights. The Berry Schools are not self-sustaining, as charged by the firm of political lawyers, Denny & Wright, in whose hands Governor Hardwick placed for collection a charge against the schools amounting to $7fi,000, al¬ leged “back taxes. *» Miss Berry does not run her schools to make money: it is a work ot Christian charity; a 1 political lawyers know little about such a work. If Governor Hardwick forces collection of this alleged debt, he will wreck the Berry Schools. Is the Governor willing to assume respon¬ sibility for such a thing? Denny & Wright, back-tax collectors for the State of Georgia, charge that the student body of the Berry Schools is, to a large extent, made up of boys and girls from well-to-do families. That charge is shattered when I in form you that one of the questions put to each person seeking enrollment is, “Are you able to attend soma oilier school? On a collection of $76,000, Messrs. Denny & Wright, h ve been promised a fee of more Hum FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. The fee itself is illegal: and nobody knows this better than Gov. Thos. W. Hardwick, Miss Martha Berry is no tax-dodger; but there are thousands of rich tax-dodgers in Georgia, who escape all taxation because the Legislature refuses to (ax hidden wealth, If the Governor and his political lawyers, Denny & Wright,—back-tax collectors—would turn their guns, upon the rich tax-dodgers of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce they would : be doing a fine business. In persecuting Miss Berry, they seek to cripple a little woman who lias earned the gratitude of thousands of boys and girls, now grown-ups and voters; and in doing this noble work, Miss Berry has earned a place in the ! history of Georgia. When Asa Candler decided to invest some i df his Coco-Cola millions in a college, he or di.od the Legislature to exempt from taxation I “College Endowments,” and the Legislature c >beyed Mr. Candler’s orders. The money invested in the Berry Schools an ENDOWMENT, and the State has no j right- to tax it. The Joseph E Brown Endowment at the j I Diversity is not taxed: the Asa Candler En dowinent at the Coco-Cola University is not taxed: the Jesse, Mercer and Thomas E. Wat son Endowments at Mercer University are not taxed: MH\ SINGLE Ol P MTSS MARTHA PEHRT ? B Governor Hardwick and Messrs. Denny & Wri ^ ht ^ iiss Beri T to P«y to Georgia a pittance o( taxes and to Denny & Wright, a h W ei ' fc( ' lhan lho >' special ever « arn ed, the Legisla j hire should pass a appropriation re¬ funding the money, thereby removing from Georgia a stain and a disgrace, The Maternity Regulators, headed bv Margaret Sanger, noted writer on birth <* 011 - trol, met at the Town Hall, New York, last 1 week, to discuss the question: “Birth control: is it Moral?” More than three thousrr.d loyal souls at tended this public meeting, hoping to hear ad j dresses from Mrs. Sanger and other celebrated j birth controllers. They had a had right to hold j the meeting and t ho speakers a right to 1 deliver their speeches. To make my own position clear, I will say that the question of birth control vitally affects the peace of the world. Just how far the State I should go. is a question for lawmakers to dc (Continued on Rage Four A Senator Thos. E. Watson’s Speech On The Ford-Newberry Case. Mr. WATSON of Georgia. Mr. President, it seemu to me an extraordinary thing that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Borah) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Walsh) should hot have drawn attention to the fact that the Supreme Court in passing upon this case disposed of the very question which they raised and upon which 1 took issue with them. In the opinion of Justice Pitney, concurred in by Justices Brandeis and Clarke, will be found this paragraph: It follows that one’s entry upon a candidacy for nom¬ ination and election as a Senator With knowledge that such candidacy will come to naught unless supported by expenditure of money, beyond the specified limits, Is not within the Inhibition of the act unless it is contemplated that the candidate shall have a part in procuring the ex¬ cessive expenditures beyond tlie effect of his mere candi¬ dacy in evoking spontaneous contributions and expendi¬ tures by his supporters; and that his remaining in tlie field and participating in the ordinary activities of the cam¬ paign with knowledge of such activities furnish in a gen eial sense the ‘'occasion” for the expenditures is not to be regarded as a “causing” by the candidate of such expen¬ diture within the meaning of the statute. In that one paragraph in the decision of the high e8t le * al tribunal on earth the entire argument on the iaw mad ® ,J y the able Senator from Montana (Mr. WaIah > is ama f ed - J add further, that in civil , aw th * re ha B alw T been the prin c,p ' 6 n ‘ at !f * comes l H f f t that l ought t0 inqulre int0 the activitles of aome one acting for me and i do not do it, i am charged with civil responsibility for whatever that Investigation would have developed. Beyond that the common law oes not. go. Beyond that the rule of reason does not go. The Senator from Montana (Mr. Walsh) was under the necessity of going to Canada to get an English lav book to govern the votes of this body, which is made by the Constitution the judge of this case and every similar case. The Senator from Montana surely knows that the Canadian iaw follows that of England: and, if my information of the present English law is correct, no candidate can furnish a vehicle o: conveyance of any kind'to convey a voter to the polls, although he knows that that voter wants to vote for himself. It would void his seat in the House of Commons, if I have been correctly Informed as to the rigor of recent Eng¬ lish law; and of course the Canadian law follows that of the Mother Country. There is no such law in Georgia; there is no such law in Kentucky; there is no such law' in Missouri; there is no such law in the Federal statute hooks. There are parts of these decisions in which there Is no divided court at all, except upon the ground of the decision. I hold the opinions of all the justices in my hand, and every justice who spoke concurs in say¬ ing that the trial judge below misconstrued the statute upon which the defendants were being tried and that the case would liavo to go back for a new •ial, and while Mr. Justice McReynolds held that the congross ioi.al law, known as the corrupt practices act, was void because it interfered with our power to be the full judges of the qualifications of the Members of this body. Chief Justice White simply differed from him in saying that he thought Congress had the right to pass such a law. That was the only difference, on a mere question of law on which two lawyers differ, just as two doctors might differ. In discussing the case, it may interest the Senator from Montana, who is here-—it will not interest the Senator from Idaho, because he is not here—to learn that Mr. Justice McReynolds disposed fully and finally of every contention set up by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Pomerene) and the. Senator from Montana (Mr. Walsh). I read that much. The court is quoting the opinion of the court below, and the full significance of this paragraph is contained in the last sentences. Therefore I ask Senators to reserve their opinions until t reach that, last sentence. The court said: Taken With the State enactment, tlie Federal statute in effect declares a candidate for the United States Senate punishable by fine and imprisonment, if (except for certain specified purposes), he give, contribute, expend, use, prom¬ ise or cause to be given, contributed, expended, used or promised in procuring; his nomination and election, more than'$3,750—one-half of one year’s salary. Under the con¬ struction of the act urged by the Government and adopted by the court below it is not necessary that <lie inhibited sum be paid, promised, or expended by the candidate him¬ self, or be devotea to any secret or immoral purpose. For example, its open and avowed contribution and use by supporter* upon suggestion by him or with his approval and cooperation in order to promote public discussion and debate touching ’•tal questions or to pay necessary expenses of speakers, etc., is enough— Now I come to the last sentence— and upon such interpretation the conviction below was asked and obtained. Then the court goes forward and overturns the de¬ cision of the court below. It holds, further, that Con¬ gress may not set a limit, minimum or maximum, to what may be spent for the election of a candidate. That is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, our Supreme Court, and since that decision was rendered apparently no steps have been taken by the Govern¬ ment or by any citizen to have anybody prosecuted un¬ der the State iaw of Michigan. I am not proceeding upon inference, Mr. Presi¬ dent: I am going to argue the law and the fa"!t:; and before j shall have finished I -vill endeavor to lessen the heat of this debate and to increase the illumination. We have had a vast deal of noise, hut we have not had much light. We nre going to have some if I live to finish this speech, , 1' took occasion to say that thp opinion of Chief Justice White was not a dissenting opinion, aB was claimed by the junior Senator from Tennessee (Mr. McKellar). It shows for itself that it is not. Chief Justice White concurred in the reversal of the judg¬ ment of the court below and remanded the case for a nett' trial, which it has never had and which it could have had if Mr. Ford had wtanted it. In this decision the Chief Justice expressly de¬ clared that there was no evidence whatever to sustain the charge of bribery. If that ivas not the essence of the case, I am unable to understand It. What was the charge? It was a charge that there was a conspiracy. To do what? To use money improperly; in other words to corrpt; in other words, to bribe. The /great t Chief Justice, whose voice now speaks from the tomb in behalf of the living, said there was no evidence ever to sustain the charge of bribery. Then upon ground are we to be driven into expelling this man from the Senate, we, his* jurors and his judges? There is another paragraph of his opinion which I wilt read into the Record. He said: Conspiracy to contribute and expend in exee»s of the amount permitted by the statute was, then, the sole issue. wholly disassociated from rend disconnected with any cor¬ rupt or wrongful use of the amount charged to have been illegally contributed and expended. As putting out of view the constitutional question already 'considered, the errors assigned are based solely upon asserted miscon structions of the statute by the court In Us charge to the Jury, we bring the statute at once Into view. There the Chief Justice said again that the excess amount had nothing to do with the case. Then Ije added a very pertinent suggestion, which I in a feebler and briefer way put to the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Idaho: If you, Mr. Sena¬ tor, had a campaign committee appointed to do legal work for your election, and that committee is duped by some spy or agent of your opponent into authorizing that spy or that agent to do some illegal thing, osten¬ sibly in your behalf, then away goes your seat, your enemies will take it from you by a strategem, and you will defend yourself upon the well-known maxim that all tricks are justifiable in love and war. I tried to point out to my distinguished friend from Montana (Mr. Walsh) that his construction of the law would put every innocent candidate at the mercy of the guilty. How could he know what his campaign committee was doing through his agent? How could he know when a spy would be put into his citadel and the gates opened to the enemy? He could not possibly know it. You impute criminality to an innocent man, and there is no principle of law, written or unwritten, that imputes to me a crime or imputes to you a crime. It may impute to us civil liability, but not crime Crime must he proved by competent testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it is circumstantial evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and if It is circumstantial evidence, such as is relied on in this case to connect Truman Newberry with what was being done in his behalf that testimony must exclude every other reason¬ able hypothesis. If that is not the law, I do not know what the law is. Proceeding where my friend the Senator from Mon¬ tana interrupted me, I will read further from the opin ion of the Chief Justice. He said: To illustrate: Under the instruction given, in •very case where to the knowledge of the candidate— Now. T am coming right straight to the Senator from Montana, if he will pay a little attention— to tile knowledge of the candidate a sum in excess of tha amount limited by tbe statute was contributed by citizens to the campaign, the candidate, if he failed to withdraw, would be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment. So, also, contributions by citizens to the expenses of the campaign, if only knowledge could be brought home to them that the aggregate of suen contributions would ex¬ ceed the limit of the statute, would bring them, as il¬ lustrated by this case, within the conspiracy statute and accordingly subject to prosecution. Under this view the greater the public service and the higher the character of the candidate, giving rise to a correspondingly complete and self-sacrifleirtw support by the electorate to his can didacy, the ntbro ’ Inevitably would criminality and infa¬ mous punishment result both to the candidate and to the citizen who contributed. That sounds to me like good law, like good com¬ mon sense, and it does not in any way dissent from the majority opinion of the court, because Mr. Justice McKenna had already said substantially the same thing as Mr. Justice Pitney afterwards said. Again, the Chief Justice continued: For the reasons stated, although I dissent from the ruling of the court ns to the unconstitutionality of the act of Congress I, nevertheless, think Its Judgment of reversal should he adopted, qualified, however, so as ro reserve the right to a new trial. Dogs anyone call that a dissenting opinion? Why, it is not. It is a concurring opinion based upon a dif¬ ferent ground. Nothing is much more common than that in Supreme Courts. What has become of that new trial? When I asked that question the Senator from Montana, imag¬ ining himself to be in a justice of the peace court or arguing a case before a notary public, said, "Did you hear any more of the Lorimer case? Did you hear any more of the Clarke case? Did you hear any more of the Montana cases?” There was no power in the United States Supreme Court to inhibit in any way a State prosecution in the State court in Michigan. There were the statutes. It is said they have been violated. It has been said that Newberry was a party to the violation. Why has he not been prosecuted? Why have none of his agents been prosecuted in Michigan, in the vicinity where the crime was committed and before a jury of their peers? Mr. President, before I cahie to this body the news¬ papers instilled me with the idea that Newberry had bought his scat. That was the saying everywhere, that "Newberry had bought his seat.” Therefore, when the case was entered upon in this final court I expected to hear overwhelming testimony convicting Mr. Newberry of having bought his seat. When the Senator from Missouri (XIr. Spencer) fairly and fully flung his challenge to this side of the Chamber to point out the evidence of a single witness showing that Truman H. Newberry had spent one dollar or had been a party to the spending of one dollar for his election, I expected him to be crushed by replies from this side. But no reply wan made then and no reply has yet been made. The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Pomerene) spotce parts of three days, large parts of two of them: the Senator from Montana (^Ir. Walsh) spoke part of two days, large parts of both: but up to this time I have yet to hoar a single scrap of testimony to sustain the charge that Truutan H. Newberry bought his seat or had it bought for him. No such evidence had been presented. Not one Senator on this side of the Chamber has yet said that Mr. Newberry had been the accomplice of anybody who had improperly used money. Does any¬ body say it now? Nobody says it. Mr. President, on last Saturday, while the Senator from Montanu (Mr. Walsh) was speaking, 1 asked him a question in regard to what was said in the decision of the Supreme Court exonerating Truman H. Newberry from bribery, and the Senator said, with bis usual ^Continued on Page Three.)
