Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.