Newspaper Page Text
Speech of Col. G. Arthur Gordon at
Meeting of the 2nd and 3rd District
Meeting of The People’s Demo=
cratic League, May 2nd, 1906.
There is an excellent rule laid down
for business men, and that is that they
should keep their mouths shut. I
have tried to follow this rule since
the first meeting of the Democratic
Club, because I believed that my use
fulness —if I had any, lay in the di
rection of doing work on the registra
tion. Moreover, you all know more
about politics than I do, and I much
prefer to mingle with you and dis
cuss matters and ask you questions
rather than to talk at you from a
platform. But I have consented to
say a few words to you tonight at
the request of Mr. Cunningham, be
cause it seems to me that the real
issues are being lost sight of, and
that we are scattering our shot in
stead of concentrating them.
The spirit which animates our cause
is the same as that which induced the
colonists to draw up and sign the
Declaration of Independence. We have
revolted against intolerable, political
tyranny, and have declared ourselves
independent to vote as we please. We
have dared announce that we will not
bo dictated to by one man. He claims
to be a leader; we claim he is an un
fair boss.
With your permission, I shall out
line to you as briefly as possible the
situation as I see it in the city of
Savannah and the county of Chatham,
the reasons why such a situation ex
ists, and the political character of the
individual who is responsible for this
situation; I shall endeavor to fortify
my statements w r ith facts, and if any
of the statements which I make, or
the facts which I cite are inaccurate
1 stand subject to correction by those
who are better posted than I am.
The city of Savannah and the coun
ty of Chatham are governed today
by one individual, whose sworn duty
it is to prosecute criminals, and make
it impossible for them to ply their
trade in this community. How has
he fulfilled this duty? Is there a
man within the sound of my voice who
is not aware of the fact that gamb
ling houses are being run in the city
of Savannah, and that they are be
ing run without fear of molestation
by the c-itv police, or the county offi
cers? Are they not, in fact, protected
and encouraged by the very people
who ought to close them up?
It is well known to all of you
that policy shops have been running
wide open in this city. If they are
not running now, it is because our
fignt has compelled the opposition to
close them. If the officials didn’t
know of the existence of these places
(which were well known to every one
else, now did they manage to close
them so suddenly? Will they remain
closed after the election if we are de
feated?
If any man in this community ques
tions the evils of policy playing, let
him talk with the wives of the wage
earners, who are swindled out of
their meagre salaries by these con
temptible thieves, or let him inquire
amongst the poor and ignorant ne
groes who are lured by the hopes of
winning a prize, and who can buy tick
ets at as low a figure as. 5 cents.
If any man doubts the curse which
public gaming houses bring on this
community, let him examine the court
records of the past ten or twelve
years, or let him read over the files
of the newspapers, confining himself
to the news columns, for he will find
no adequate comment in the editorial
columns, and let him meditate upon
the record of defalcations and sui
cides and murders which can be traced
directly to the influence of these pub
lic gaming houses. ILet him also note
the frequency and even the regularity
with which certain names appear in
connection with indictments and con
victions, and sentences, for keeping
gaining houses, and for gambling, and
let him observe how these same
names occur as petitioners for par
don to prison commissioners. Ask
yourselves, as citizens of Savannah
and Chatham county, whether these
things should be permitted to contin
ue. Are they valuable as factors in
building up this community and in
attracting a desirable class of citi
zens? Are they calculated to improve
the moral tone of the rising genera
tion? Try to discover why it is that
certain big gamblers, the cleverest,
most smooth-spoken and most danger
ous, the men whose names appear
most frequently in the connection I
have just mentioned, why these partic
ular men prosper at the expense, of
the smaller gamblers, why they re
ceive the most considerate and gentle
treatment whenever they are brought
within the pale of the law. If no
agreement exists between the law
breakers ana the officials sworn to
prosecute them, why is it that these
big gamblers continue to flourish? If
you doubt that they do flourish, ask
any of the smaller gamblers what
chance they have of receiving protec
tion from the officials if the bigger
gamblers gwe the word to have them
pulled. Who is the best known and
most successful and the cleverest
gambler in Savannah today? Which
of the gamblers has the most politi
cal influence? Why, you all know it
is Gad D. Bryan, Jr. That man has
been indicted, convicted (and fined
for gambling. Was he not pardoned
out. of his jail sentence upbn his sol
emn promise and obligation never to
gamble again? Within six months af
ter being pardoned he was indicted,
convicted and sentenced for gambling
(unfortunately to a fine only on that
occasion). That was less than a year
ago, and yet I am informed that a
gambling house, with all the gamb
ling paraphernalia, exists over the
case of Gad D. Bryan, Jr. The offi
cials tell us that these places are not
protected; yet I have heard of an in
cident where a young man went into
the gambling hell over Bryan’s case
with a friend who was drunk. The
friend won, and the wrong amount
was given him. The young man pro
tested and was thrown out in the
street, and when he endeavored to
defend himself and insist upon justice,
he was told by the policeman on the
beat that if he did not keep quiet
he would he run in.
The fact that there is a gambling
house being run over Gad D. Bryan,
Jr's, case is notorious. Why don't the
officials close up this place? I don't
say why don’t they license these gam
blers by bringing them up and fining
them, but I say, WHY DON'T THEY
CLOSE UP THE GAMBLING
HOUSES?
I have shown you that Gad D. Bry
an, Jr., is a man who has been sen
tenced to jail for gambling, and has
been pardoned, and has, within six
months of the date of his pardon,
again been convicted of gambling,
and these facts along should stamp
him as a thoroughly undesirable citi
zen. He has not only broken the
law with respect to gambling; his
whole spirit and temper are lawless.
Let me illustrate by two incidents:
during the progress of his last trial,
while he was a prisoner at the bar
of the superior court, he deliberately
arose from his seat, and, without per
mission of any of the court officials,
proceeded to walk out of the court
room. When recalled and sternly rep
rimanded by Judge Cann he stated
that he was going to get a drink of
water; in other words, he had an ab
solute contempt for the entire proceed
ings, and, although he was a prisoner,
he considered he had a perfect right
to vacate the premises if he felt in
clined to do so.
Not very long ago he was heard to
say: “If any person undertakes to in
dict me, or anybody connected with
me, 1 will kill him.” There is a de
cent, law-abiding, respectable citizen
for you! Having suffered the very
mildest possible penalty for breaking
the law, he announces, if anybody
undertakes to interfere with him in
the continuation of his lawless prac
tices, he will commit murder. What
a charming character to have in our
midst! What a debt of gratitude we
owe to the officials who permit his
continued residence amongst us. And
this man stands high in the coun
cils of the opposition. He not only
sits on their platform at their meet
ings, but is a member of one of their
committees. I think it is the execu
tive committee, the most important
one of all.
I am often asked why it is that
the public spirit in Savannah is so
indifferent to these matters. In other
places an aroused public opinion has
swept away men like Gad D. Bryan,
Jr. Why is it that there is no public
demand for his punishment here in
Savannah? Why is it that facts
such as I have recited are not more
widely discussed and more publicly
reprobated? I contend that there is
a public sentiment against the exist
ence in the community of men like
Gad D. Bryan, Jr., and that there is a
demand for the suppression of the
gaming houses which are maintained
in this city, but the reason that this
public sentiment is not more effect
ive is the fact that it is muzzled.
Its only channel for expression is
in the public prints, and the news
papers in the city of Savannah are re
luctant to print news items which
bear upon this subject. I am free to
admit that the Savannah Press is bet
ter than the Morning News in this
respect.
So much for gambling, gaming
houses and policy shops, and the
reasons for their existence.
Turn now for a moment to the
political conditions: A municipality
or a county is nothing more nor less
than a business proposition, and the
officials who are elected by the votes
of the citizens are put in their posi
tions for the purpose of expending
the taxpayers’ money in an economical
and effective manner, and for the pur
pose of enforcing the law. It, there
fore, becomes a matter of necessity
that honest, efficient, respectable men
should occupy, not only the higher,
but the more subordinate offices. This
being true, the all-important consider
ation is, Who controls the election or
the appointment of the city and
county officails?Under the present sys
tem they are controlled by one man;
the same man whose duty it is to pros
ecute and convict criminals.
There is no use blaming the sys
tem, we must look for the individual
who is behind the system. Now, the
best way to judge of a man and his
character is by his record, and first
consider the men he has chosen to
do his bidding. This man —and I take
occasion here to mention his name —
W. W. Osborne, has selected for his
cabinet James Mcßride, John J. Gar
rity and Charles Garfunkel. Now 1
have no particular grievance against
any of these three men. Probably, ac
cording to their lights, they live up to
their own standards. It is, perhaps,
not their fault that their standards
are not as high as they might be.
Two of them are self-confessed crimi
nals. But W. W. Osborne Is a man
of ability; he is a man of education;
he is a talented lawyer, and there is
every reason why his influence in
this community—-politically and other
wise, should be good.
And, first, as to Mr. Osborne’s atti
tude towards the gamblers. In previ
ous campaigns, I am told, he has taken
the position that he will prosecute
fearlessly the gamblers who are
brought before him, hut that it is
not his duty to collect evidence against
these gamblers. I am not a lawyer,
and, therefore, cannot discuss the le
gal feature of this contention, but as
a citizen, I take issue with him and
tell him that, as the solicitor general
of this county, it is his duty to see to
it that crime does not flourish in
this community.
He deserves no credit for prosecut
ing those against whom evidence is
brought. I concede he does this fear
lessly and effectively. When eyidence
is presented, he has to prosecute, or
run the risk of being impeached.
Moreover, when others get the evi
dence he wants to convict, so as to
get his 60 per cent of the fines. I
claim that the public prosecutor should
ASSIST IN SUPPRESSING crime in
this community. It is no reply to all
this to say that my character is not
perfect, or that some other private
citizen's character is not perfect on
this score. Wle are weighing in the
balance Osborne, THE OFFICIAL, in
his OFFICIAL CAPACITY, and by
his OFFICIAL RECORD he must be
judged. Suppose Jerome, in New
Y’ork, had taken the position that it
was only his duty to prosecute the
gamblers who were brought before
him through the efforts of others?
Jerome did not wait for special pre
sentments against gamblers; he made
raids and had John Doe subpoenas is
sued, and he made an effort to SUP
PRESS crimes of every kind, and
gambling in particular, and he suc
ceeded to a large extent in eliminating
gambling in New York.
Does the solicitor general really
desire that gambling shall cease? To
bring out clearly his attitude toward
the gamblers, imagine for a moment
Solicitor General Osborne making a
raid on the second story of Gad Bry
an’s case without first asking Bry
an’s permission to call. Can you pic
ture to yourself anything more ab
surd, or anything more ludicrous than
Solicitor General Osborne raiding the
gambling place above the case of his
committeeman, Gad Bryan? Yet why
should it be ludicrous if the proper
relations of prosecutor and criminal
existed? It did not seem an unnat
ural thing for Jerome to do. Why is
it that Solicitor General Osborne de
sires that the gamblers shall con
tinue to flourish in Savannah? Let
me read you the report of a special
committee of the grand jury of the
superior court of Chatham county for
the March term, 1901. In passing I
may say I was not on this grand jury,
and had nothing to do with it:
“Savannah, Ga., May 21, 1901.
“To the Grand Jury, Superior Court,
for the March Term, 1901:
.* ***** *
“Regarding the information asked
for by the grand jury as to the aggre
gate of fines imposed and collected
for gambling privileges, we find the
amount collected from August 10th,
last, to the date to be $10,750. This
total does not include costs amount
ing to $2,154.50, nor fines imposed
for offences other than gambling.
“If the usual tribute of SI,OOO and
costs is levied per capita upon the
nine (9) gamblers recently indicted
by the grand jury, the above amount
will be increased to $19,750.
“Os the $10,750 already collected,
the solicitor general receives 60 per
cent or $6,450. Os the item $2,184.80,
representing costs already collected,
the solicitor general receives $1,560,
MAKING TOTAL FEES FOR THAT
OFFICER COLLECTED (TO 'DATE
SB,OIO.
“If by reason of the indictment of
the nine (9) gamblers above referred
to v the amount, $10,750, is increased
to $19,750, 60 per cent of this amount,
plus $1,830, THE SOLICITOR S PART
OF THE COSTS, WILL MAKE HIS
FEES $13,650. After deducting the
solicitor’s stipend, the balance of fines
and costs is divided between the sher
iffs and clerks of the two courts.
“WE FIND IT IS NOT THE CUS
TOM, AS HAS BEEN SUPPOSED,
TO EXTEND CREDIT FOR THESE
COST'S, AND FINES, BUT THAT
THE BUSINESS BEING LUCRA
TIVE, THE CASH IS PROMPTLY
AND CHEERFULLY PAID.
“The committee is under obliga
tions to the ordinary and the clerks
of the two courts for their courtesy
in facilitating its examination of their
respective offices.
“Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) T. F. JOHNSON,
C. B. MALONE,
F. H. MARSHALL.”
In your presence I hand a copy of
this committee report to the repre
sentative of the Morning News, and
another to the representative of the
Savannah Press.
Think of it! $13,680 in nine months.
Is it likely that Mr. Osborne is desir
ous of stopping gambling in Savan
nah when the returns from this
source alone net him such a figure?
Is he the proper party to whom to
entrust the reform of the gambling
evil in the city of Savannah? And
where, after all, did this money come
from? Where do convicted gamblers
get the funds which are thus paid?
They get it by cheating and swind
ling the poor, drunken, drugged, weak
willed human beings who are lured
into their gambling hells.
There is another matter which will
show the attitude of the solicitor gen
eral towards the gamblers: ■ I hold
iu my hand the docket of the superior
court of Chatham county. Under date
of Thursday, June 15th, 1905, I find
the following assignments:
State vs. Levan, gambling. For
State, Solicitor General; for Defense,
E. H. Abrahams.
State vs. Rosenthal, gambling. For
State, Solicitor General; for Defense,
Twiggs & O. Abrahams.
State vs. O’Dell, gambling and pol
icy shops. For State, Solicitor Gen
eral; for Defense, Twiggs & O.
Rourke.
State vs. E. A. Owens, James Johns
ton, Henry Mitchell, running policy.
For State, Solicitor General; for De
fense, E. H. Abrahams and John
Rourke, Jr.
Here is a nice state of affairs. Eddie
Abrahams and John Rourke, Jr., de
fending gamblers! These gentlemen
have served as acting solicitors gen
eral; they are employed, by the firm
of the solicitor general; they have
desks in the office of the solicitor
general’s firm; t.iese gentlemen are
placed in the pleasant position of pros
ecuting criminals one day and defend
ing them the next. It might be perti
nently asked, “Are these duties per
taining to the firm of the solicitor
general?”
I have said, and I repeat it, I believe
that it is the duty of the solicitor gen
eral to assist in suppressing gamb
ling. It has been successfully sup
pressed in other places. An appeal
for a chain gang sentence would ac
complish it in five minutes.
Not a word concerning the difficulty
of reaching this class of criminals:
The grand jury of the March term,
1905, indicted Bryan, Rosenthal and
Levan by special presentment, which
means that the solicitor general did
not present the cases —in some cases
for keeping gambling houses, in oth
ers for gambling. Every single wit
ness who testified before the grand
jury in these cases was either run
out of town or tampered with, and it
would have been utterly impossible
to convict any of these men had it not
been for the fact that one witness
never appeared before the grand jury
at all, and, therefore, the gamblers
were in ignorance of the fact that his
testimony would be used against them.
These three men, Bryan, Rosenthal
and Levan, were all convicted of the
crimes for which they had been indict
ed. Wlithin six months of the time
when two of them, Bryan and Rosen-
thal, had been pardoned out of jail
upon a promise not to gamble again,
they were gambling or running gamb
ling houses in so notorious a fashion
that even strangers visiting the city
had no difficulty in finding their way
imo these places, and yet it remained
for a private citizen to bring these
matters to the attention of the grand
jury, resulting in special presentments,
and the solicitor general, with his full
force at his command, was seemingly
in ignorance of the existence in the
community of such criminal practices.
Is it likely he was?
Why are these things overlooked,
and so seldom mentioned? Is it be
cause the newspapers generally ig
nore them. For example, very re
cently Judge Cann delivered an elo
quent and most important charge to
the grand jury, dealing with a com
munication of the previous grand jury,
in which a committee called attention
to certain evils which existed in the
community. Judge Cann very prop
erly said that if they know of the
existence of these evils it was their
duty as grand jurors to indict the
law breakers. The charge was so im
portant that the Savannah Press com
mented on it editorially. Let me read
you the most important part of Judge
Cann’s remarks:
“Again, the committee could not
have intended to urge a more vigor
ous enforcement ‘by all officers of the
law in the prosecution of persons
guilty of offenses against the state,’
particularly the ‘chief offenses’ speci
fied by them, because the judge dis
tinctly charged the grand jury, of
which they were members, that ‘when
grand jurors are empanelled and
sworn they become, for the term of
their service, public officials, ‘and also
called to their special attention the
law of gambling in ail its features
and that of keeping a gambling room.
Notwithstanding this was done, not
a single indictment for those offenses,
or for the non-observance of the law
against keeping open a tippling house
on Sunday was returned by the last
grand jury. They could not have
meant ‘all officers of the law,’ because
one of the committee is a deputy sher
iff of this county, and we are not ad
vised of any recent arrests made by
him for any of the offenses named.’
Another member of that committee is
one of the board of mayor and aider
men of Savannah, and the printed pro
ceedings of that body do not disclose
that he made similar recommenda
tions to that body or to the city po
lice.”
The deputy sheriff mentioned, and
the member of the board of mayor
and aldermen mentioned by Judge
Cann are both prominent supporters of
the opposition. Did the Morning News
comment editorially on this subject?
Let me read you the headings of the
Morning News on that day: “An In
spired Article? ‘Be Honest With Thy
self! Hoke Smith and the Tliomasville
Press;’ ‘Mild Winter and the Crops;*
‘Would It Be Timely for Representa
tive Griggs to be Chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Commit
tee,’ ” and, most important of all and
most vital to our local interests,"What
Germany Seeks at Algeciras.”
’Now as to the fair and impartial
prosecution of law-breakers under the
solicitor generalship of W. W. Os
borne; Garrity is a member of Os
borne’s cabinet, and is a particular
pet of Osborne's, and I suppose he
looks to Osborne to get him out of
trouble when he gets into it just as
the taxpayers look to Osborne to pros
ecute people who get into trouble,
whether they are friends of his or
not.
A little ever a year ago I read
in one Monday’s issue of the Savannah
Press about three lines describing how
John J. Garrity, superintendent of the
scavenger department, had gone out
to the city dump on the previous day
(Sunday), had beaten one of the ne
groes there in the head with a billy,
knocking him down and causing the
blood to flow, and had then shot at
him twice as he ran away. Needless
to say the above news item did not
make its appearance in the Morning
News. At that time I did not know
John J. Garrity by sight, but it oc
curred to me that if people were per
mitted to beat and shoot at inoffen
sive and unprotected negroes, they
would soon transfer their attentions
to such white people as were weaker
than themselves, and would finally
reach a point where they would feel
no hesitation in attacking prominent
citizens.
I sent for the negro, who told me
his story and corroborated it with the
evidence of a white man. It seems
that the negro owed Garrity some
money, on which he was paying in
terest at the rate of about 360 per
cent a year. Garrity attacked him on
the subject of paying the Interest,
and, without provocation,—so the
white man said, made an assault on
him. I sent the negro to Mr. Os
borne, who told him to swear out a
Continued on Page 8.