Part 2c – JFR Trial … Chambers
This gets really good ... keep reading
Trial, Page 112, Sect. 334, June 4th 1918, Judge Howe’s Chambers
DEF: Sparks: “We are going, if the Court pleases, in this matter we shall have to file an affidavit if we are forced to trial today, with the question of the indictment being in the shape it is, that the time in this case has been so short to prepare for trial it is physically impossible for me to prepare. If your Honor will give me opportunity to – …”
COURT: “You say you have not been able to get the case ready. When was the Indictment filed?”
DEF-Sparks: “The 8th of May.”
COURT: “If you were so busy, you should have told the defendants so.”
DEF-Sparks: “We have been busy in this case, we notified the Government we could not be ready.”
COURT: “You will have to make a strong showing to get a continuance.”
DEF-Sparks: “You Honor, on first flush, seemed so reasonable I think we could show that.”
COURT: “I hope I shall be reasonable on second flush. I won’t make any difference with the progress of the trial by filing the Demurrer. I should do that any time. Even after we have the Jury.
[Note: I will discuss the Demurrer and the Court denials in another post.]
… Later that day …
COURT: “I overrule your Demurrer on each ground. You presented two grounds of Demurrer. I will overrule it as to each and give an exception to each of the defendants to the overruling of their Demurrer. How about your motion for a continuance?”
DEF-Sparks: “We have not made it now, because of your dismissal of the Demurrer.”
COURT: “I understood you wanted a continuance.”
DEF-Sparks: “Yes –
COURT: “You may now enter your pleas of Not Guilty for each defendant.”
DEF-Sparks: “We will now make a motion to your Honor for a continuance in this case, on the ground that we have not had sufficient time to sufficiently prepare this case for trial, and in support of that motion we state that on the 8th of May, this indictment was found against these defendants; that I believe on the 12th of May I went down to Washington [DC] and had a conference with the Attorney-General, the purpose of which was to see whether a general agreement on """all the works""" of this Association could not be reached with a view of eliminating the publication of any matters the Government considered seditious.”
COURT: “How is that material?”
DEF-Sparks: “It is only material to show how little time we have has to prepare this case.”
COURT: “You gave your attention to carrying on your business there than to getting ready.”
DEF-Sparks: “We supposed we could dispose of the entire proposition. We were looking at it from a Government proposition. The Government wanted to accomplish a certain thing. It wanted to eliminate what it designated as religious propaganda, and we were trying to get the Government to state how they wanted us to act in the elimination of that religious propaganda. We assured the Government there was no intent on the part of any member of this Association to impede the draft law, and that we would do certain things without prejudice.
“We left the situation with the Attorney-General. He was to take it up with his superior and pass on that as a Government proposition and see whether it was not better from a Government standpoint to reach an agreement with us as to future conduct of this Association, the Government having sent out a telegram to its local Association saying to people who violated in the past were not prosecuted, but only those who, after intentionally persisted in the sale of this literature. The matter came on for pleading to withdraw our plea on the 15th of May. I stated in open court I had been in Washington [DC] in the hope we would be able to reach some agreement with the Government on this matter, and we did not go into the preparation of this case because we did not feel it would be necessary.”
COURT: “I should hold that was no excuse for not getting ready to try a case. Your clients are indifferent. You devote your time making an agreement for future conduct. Have you succeeded in making an agreement?”
DEF-Sparks: “No.”
COURT: “I doubt if you will. Suppose you did? You go to Washington and give attention there rather than to the District Attorney here, who has this charge.”
DEF-Sparks: “We assumed if we reached an agreement, these cases would not be prosecuted.
COURT: “In other words, you gave attention to having the case withdrawn rather than defending it.
My Comments: What was going on here was that the Judge may have granted a continuance, but Sparks would have to have good reasons. His reasons were lacking. Sparks was to busy screwing around with deals.
The bigger issue I also see, is that Sparks & his Clients, JFR & Company were willing to cut a deal with the Government to not publish certain things, preach certain things, or engage in certain acts that violated the law … if the Government would only drop the case. So, JFR was not concerned about publishing “Truth” but cutting deals through his lawyer to curb what he said in exchange for staying out of the Gray-Bar Hotel. Judge Howe saw through this crap, and denied the motion for a continuance.
There is more on this that will be an eye-opener … to be continued