The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 9, 1927, Page 6

a aS Page Six . THE DAILY WORKER, EW YORK, TUESDA » AUGUST 9, 1927 “Fuller’s (Continued from Page Two) vital bearing on the question whether Sacco and Vanzetti were fairly tried. Certainly no individual, reading the governor’s on, will concede that he has in any way jus- tified putting the two men to death. “Gov. Fuller says that his inquiry was based on three questions: 1. Was the jury trial fair? 2. Were the ac- cused entitled to a new trial? 3. Are they guilty or not guilty? He con- tends that the t was , and that the defendants were guilty of the South Braintree mur “My belief that the t was not fair hand knowledge o of which the following are re ntative: Thayer Openly Prejudiced. “Judge Thayer outspokenly fy defendants and tl al at Dedham ded on first- and t the and hos- tile toward t y evidence had been etti were tried in aped like piano ping top open). This, 1 al in evi- dence at ve them the look of dang to the ob- server. Witnessess Incompetent and Quesi by ques | Decision -Tllogical”, “Framed specific: was ged a by Cap Proctor, gun ex- pert or to around Pr rivate |, conference Katz- mann) to te the mortal bul- let came from ’s pistel This is revealed i affida Prosecution Hid Facts. 7% i “Evidence concealed by the mode prosecutior knew from the start after the xobbery. Their that Roy . ling Salesman, Were clean. They had been s was only a few industrious workers. Sacco eet from the escap- ing bandit car at Braintree, that he had a close view of the bandits, and that he had said that he conld not identify Sacco and Vanzetti as being among the robbers. Yet the state did not summo ild, and it did not no- tify the defense of what he knew. Not until long after the trial was he found by the defense by accident, and made affidavit concerning his knowledge. Concealed Fingerprint Evidence. “Finger-print evidence was con- cealed by the prosecution. Photo- graphs of the finger-prints on the it automobile were made for the , but it would never per- and it never in- r-print evidence in Why not? If the finger-im- sions of Sacco and Vanzetti were not on those doors, was not the de- fense entitled to the be: of that their finger-prints had been ors, certainly the state would d them as evidence. have us “Rmphasis upon the radical social beliefs of the defendants was used as a bludgeon by the prosecution. It is family and a home; he was a shoe-cutter, praised by his employc even though he was known as hav radical ideas. “Vanzetti was known as sober a steady. Numerous witness in. cluding the whole police force of Plymouth, were ready to come f ward at the time of the trial, to t 4tify to Vanzetti’s integrity. M ollection is that these witne not put on the stand b trade between the pr ithe defense; the pros on agreed | that, if the defense would dispense with the character witnesses, it, the prosecution, would refrain from bringing in evidence to show that Vanzetti was already serving a term in prison for an earlier holdup. Pre- sumably however, the whole jury knew about the latter fact anyhow; it had been frequently stated in the news \papers read in Norfolk county. Strange Testimony. “Frank Burke, proprietor of a glass-blowir hibition, testified that he was in a few feet of the escaping bandit car, facing it; that} one of the bandits leaning out fired a shot at him and that he was cer-| true, as the defer tain this bandit was not sacco not Vanzetti. oints out, that ced the radical is- sue into the + is true also| “Gov. Fuller s : ‘I see no evei- that Ju d the de- dence of prejudice in his (Judge| fense no t ue. But Thayer’s) conduct of the trial. That| his advi that point was never he had an opinion as to the guilt or considered a ma s act by the innocence of the accused after the defense. evidence is natural and inevitable.’ “Bringing the radical issue in was unavoidable. The defense had to bring in to show why the defendants lied to the pol on the night of arrest characterized by ‘consciousness of y judge Thayer in his jury g Persecution. i h of them 1 feared perse- and because they eution as wanted to protect their friends, many of whom had n deported, and one of whom— o—had died story De- 2 offices here after in a plunge f partment of J being held »mmunicado two months. “On the night arrest the police found in Sacco’ et the hand- written co ndbill which he was about to have printed, announ- to protest against h had occurred That night the ot ask the pris- ders nor hold- . belie cing a meeting Salsedo’s Brockton po oners about up, but about ‘Are you a soci an anarchist’? in government?’ Surely Innocent. “Tn a close study of the whole case beginning six months before the Dedham trial, [| have never found any reason to doubt that Sacco and Vanzetti were telling the absolute truth about their movements on the night of arrest, and concerning their whereabouts on the day of the mur- ders of which they were convicted. ‘The same is true concerning Vanzetti and the Bridgewater affair. “When Prosecutor Katzmann be- gan his cross-examination of the de- fendants, he did not ask about the payroll robbery, but began with questions about social doctrines. I remember the metallic tones of his first query to Vanzetti: ‘So you ran away to Mexico to dodge the draft, did you?’ And then many kindred questions. “The whole case now rests on cir- cumstantial evidence. Every piece of direct tetimony given by prosecu- tion witnesses has been discredited. No Robbery Evidence. “No trace of the payroll money was ever found. There was no evi- dence that Sacco and Vanzetti ever Do you believe got any of it, no showing that they| Bin Giwish ve If Thayer had no prejudice why did he, at the very opening of the trial, begin admonishing the talesmen about loyalty to flag and government, and lauding ‘the boys who died upon the battlefields of France?’ And why did he continue those speeches day after day? “IT heard Judge utter a threat against the defense. | This I dealt with in detail in an affi- davit filed with Gov. Fuller early in May. In that statement I told of a scene in a private dining room in the Dedham Inn, where the judge and the reporters at, on the fourth morning of the trial. Thayer had been made indignant by a statement given out by the Italian consul saying that the Italian . authorities had ‘complete confidence that the trial will be con- ducted solely as a criminal proceed- | ing, without reference to the political or social beliefs of any one involved.’ Thayer Hostile to Defense. “The reporters were a > ques- tions, One co’ H.| Moore, chief defense counsel. Men-| tion of his name aroused the judge’s hostility. (This was on the de when a special venire of 175 talesmen had been gathered in, and} all morning the defense had strenu ously opposed the use of any of tl talesmen as jurors, on. the round that they had been summoned not from the highwa: s quired by law, from places, such as a Masonic m Thayer openly “Referring to Moore’s objec to special venire, Judge Thayer} asked: ‘And what do you suppose that fellow wanted me to ask those veniremen? Are you a member of a labor union? Are you opposed to union labor? Are you a member of a secret society “Thayer made a gesture of anger. and went on, saying to the r |papermen: ‘Did you ever see a ¢ in which so many leaflets and cireu- lars have been spread broadcast say- | ‘ing that people couldn’t get a fair| trial in the State of Massachusetts?’ “As he turned to leave the room he shook his fist and said to ‘the |newspapermen: ‘You wait till I give my charge to the jury. I'll show. em!’ “Gov. Fuller says: ‘The charge of , the judge was satisfactory to coun- |sel for the accused and no exceptions (Continued on Column Five) TET UNION WORKER: “TRY AND GET IT!” NOTE.—During his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Republic: DAILY J. Louis Engdahl, editor of The WORKER, secured answers from Alexis eneral secretary of the Soviet Railroad rkers’ Union, to questions that workers in the United States might have asked if they had had the opportunity. Some of these answers have already been published. Today, Secretary Amassow tells of the system of education in the Soviet Union and the relations of the railroad workers to it. The question and the an- swer follows: * * * LABOR AND EDUCATION IN THE UNION. QUESTION.—What is the system of education in the Union of Socialist So schools, and what facilities are provided for the work- ers to get the necessary training for admission to the universities 7 SOVIET ¢ Schools Exist For Toilers. ANSWER.—I. Differences in school conditions under czarism and under Soviets: 1. Prior to the revolution, the workers and peasants and their children had very limited facilities of gaining an education in the middle and higher schools. There re schools that were absolutely closed to them (ly- institutes, and the like). Now the schools exist ceum: tor the toilers. 2. All scholasticism and metaphysics has been driven from the schools. Instead of theology, social science is being taught in the schools, thus cultivating in the students a materialistic conception of history. 3. Formerly there was no strictly uniform system of popular education, so as to render it difficult to the children of the working classes to gain access to the higher schools. Now the whole educational system has | been so adapted as to afford the utmost educational lities for the toilers. 4. Formerly universal education was not permitted. Now universal education constitutes the immediate aim Soviet government. According to the basie laws of the Soviet Consti- tution, the schools are based on the following princi- ples: (a) Separation of schools from the church. (b) Class privileges in the schools for toilers and their child Accordingly, preference of admission to the schools is given to workers and their children; next to pea- ts and their children, to intellectual workers and their children, and so on. * * * Il. Methods of Teaching in the Schools. The methods of teaching in the Soviet schools are as follows: Children between the ages of 8 and 17 pass through the social education schools, of which.there are at pres- ent three categor' (a) the four year school (for chil- dren between the ages of 8 and 12); (b) the seven year school (for children between the ages of 8 and 15); and (c) the nine year school (for children between the ages fa | of 8 and 17), Those graduating from the four year elementary school may continue in the occupational and technical shool, which trains candidates for positions on. the ior administrative and technical staffs (assistant tion-masters, chiefs of railway depots, etc.). Those graduating from the seven year school may continue in the technical schoo! which trains candidates positions on the intermediate technical and admin- fie mana Those g: ete.). duating from the nine year school may con- Ww ineers, t Republics, who fills the higher | staffs (station-masters, assistant district traf. | tinue in the superior technical school which trains rail- | | ship i { For the purpose of training skilled workers in the | various branches, there are: (a) The factory apprenticeship schools, and (b) The short term courses. ; Along with these there exists also a system of bri- gade apprenticeship, as an extra-mural form of train- ir !led workers directly on the job, under the tuition of expert workmen, Preliminary education covering the seven-year cur- riculum is required for admission to the factory appren- ticeship schools, but as a temporary measure, scholars are admitted also with a lower standard of prélim~ inary education, and in such cases the educational de- ficiency is subsequently to be made good during the term of tuition in the anvrenticeshin schoal. Each technical and occupational school (apprentice- school, technical school, and higher technical school) has its own specified task—to train specialists for a certain category of work, whilst those graduating from the lower technical school may pass on to the higher technical school. Thus, for instance, the appren- ticeship school constitutes the basis of preliminary training for admission to the technical school. From the technical school the graduate may be admitted to the second year of the corresponding higher schools and from the lower technical school to the first year of the same schools. For the special benefit of workers there were organ- ized: (a) Workers’ faculties at the higher schools, with sole admission for workers and peasants having a rec- ord of three years industrial life. The purpose of the workers’ faculties is to train work- ers and peasants for admission to the higher schools. (b) Evening technical schools for the workers, for the purpose of giving technical and occupational edu- cation to workers during evening hours. (ce) Training courses of various kinds, at which the workers are given opportunities to raise their quali- fications. The age limit for admission to the technical and occupational schools is 40 years. The plans and programs of tuition for the technical and occupational schools are worked out by the Depart- ment of Education, with active participation by indus- trial management’ organs and the trade unions, so as to adapt them to the interests of the respective lines of industry. These schools are established by the educational au- thorities, on the basis of requests made by the respec- tive industries. * * * Ill. Railway Technical’ and Occupational Schools, and Their Students. The highest technical schools for railway workers are: the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers, and the Leningrad Institute of Ways and Communications. Both these schools have at present a total of about 8,600 students, of whom about 4 per cent are women. As to social status they are divided as follows: | Workers 49 per cent Peasants 23° per cent Children of railway officials and other intellectual workers 28 per cent In the technical schools the children of workers con- stitute 60 per cent, the remainder consisting of the chil- dren of railway employes. Altogether in the 23 technical schools with their 30 departments (for the various services, such as traffic management, road maintenance, telegraph, material sup- ply, etc.) there are 119 classes with 4,556 pupils. In the 45 occupational schools with their 68 depart- ments there are 176 classes with 5,551 pupils. The factory apprenticeship schools exist exclusively for workers’ children, There are altogether 158 schools of this'type, with 592 classes and 16,402 pupils. There are 130 apprenticeship brigades, with 2,615 ap- prentices. Training courses for young workers there are 85, with 2,444 students. Training courses for adult workers there are 29, with 965 adult students. * * * Training of Skilled Workers On the Railway Transport. The The training of the necessary staffs of qualified | workers on the railways is done by means of: | 1, Apprenticeship schools, of which there were on the | railways towards the beginning of 1925-26 153 schools. | 2. Apprenticeship brigades, 125, 3. Training courses for young workers, 86. | 4, Professional (occupational) schools, 48. | 5. Professional (occupational) courses, 191. { ‘The method of apprenticeship schools and apprentice- | ship brigades is applied in the training of the neces- sary skilled workers for the railway workshops. There are also schools for telegraphists. There are also spe-| cialized courses for the various oceupations connected with the railway traffic. i The period of instruction in the apprenticeship schools is fom 3 to 4 years. The selection of pupils is made by special selecting commissions, with the participation of the trade union organs, First preference is given to children of railway workers, and only 15 per cent of outsiders are admitted. The age of admission is be- tween 14,and 16. | was cut off by a cobbler shop). ithe bandits. (Continued from Column Two) were taken to it.’ Contrary to the custom in other commonwealths, Judge Thayer did not submit his in- tended instructions to the defense counsel in advance of delivery, so that counsel had no inkling of what he would say in his charge until it was uttered. Defense Declines “Magnanimity.” “Then, when counsel objected to certain paragraphs in the charge (this in conference out of the jury’s hearing), Judge Thayer made a show of magnanimity by offering to recall the jury and to re-read those para- graphs and tell the jurors to disre- gard them because of objections by the defense. Naturally, the defense declined Thayer’s offer, because the recalling of the jury for such a pur- pose simply would have emphasized the points made by the judge in the objectionable paragraphs. Identification Testimony. “On what kind of identification tes- timony was the conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti obtained? “Mary Eva Splaine, shoe factory bookkeeper, saw the bandit car at South Braintree escape. She was in a second-story window about 70 feet away, and she saw the car only in the brief time required for it to travel 85 feet at 18 miles an hour—which is one and one-fifths seconds (her view Yet she gave a detailed description of the bandit who leaned out from behind the front seat—told his height, | weight, color of hair and eyebrows, complexion; described his face as thin, forehead high, shoulders square; | described his left hand, which was |two feet or more from his face, on The Railroad Workers, |tied Sacco as that bandit. But in the Their Children and Education | in the Union of Soviet Republics the back of the front seat. Witness Contradicts Herself. “At the trial Miss Splaine identi- preliminary hearing a year before the trial she admitted under oath that ‘she could not swear positively that Sacco was the bandit.’ Confronted by the record of the preliminary hear- ing at the trial, she declared she had never said such a thing. “Next day, however, she came back into-court, took the stand again, and admitted that she had said at the preliminary hearing that she could not swear positively that Sacco was the bandit. She was positive now that it was he, she contended, because of long ‘reflection’ on the matter. All this will be found on page 416 of the trial record. “On page 56 of the preliminary transcript one finds that Miss Splaine said in police court concerning Sacco: \‘I do not think my opportunity af- forded me the right to say he is the man’ Could Not Say Sacco in Car. “Frances Devlin, who saw the es- cape from the same window as Miss Splaine, also ‘positively’ identified Sacco at the trial as the bandit who leaned from the car. But she admit- ted that at the preliminary hearing she had said: ‘I don’t say positively he is the man.’ She admitted also that in the Brockton police station Sacco was compelled to assume pos- tures like that of a bandit for her. “Carlos Goodridge, a phonograph salesman, was another who ‘identi- fied’ Sacco. His testimony was dis- credited by three men to whom he talked after the murders, and to whom he said that he couldn’t iden- tify any of the bandit. It was shown to Judge Thayer, in the absence of the jury, that when Goodridge first identified Sacco in September, 1920, (when Sacco and Vanzetti were in the courtroom at Dedham for a hear- ing) Goodridge also was in court on a charge of absconding with funds belonging to his employer. One Witness Was Absconded. Judge Thayer rejected this evidence because no judgment was entered in the Goodridge case. But Goodridge pleaded guilty to the absconding charge, and his case was ‘filed.’ Did Goodridge receive a reward of free- dom for his willingness to testify against Sacco? “Lola Andrews, a woman of doubt- ful reputation, testified that she was in South Braintree on the morning of April 15, 1920, prior to the murders, and that she asked a question of a man who was under an automobile, fixing it. This man she ‘identified’ as Sacco. But Mrs, Julia Campbell, a woman who was with her at the time, testified that Mrs. Andrews did not speak to the man under the car, A Quincey policernan and others tes- tified that Mrs. Andrews told them she could not identify any of the bandits. Witness Retracts Retraction! “After the trial Mrs. Andrews made an affidavit retracting her testimony, and subsequently. retracted that re- traction. “Mike Levangie, railroad crossing | watchman, ‘identified’ the driver of the bandit car as Vanzetti. But even the district attorney admitted that Vanzetti could not have been driving the car, because various other wit- nesses had declared that the driver was a light, consumptive-looking man. Only Evidence Against Vanzetti Doubtful. “Other persons testified that Le- vangie said, shortly after the shoot- ing, that he could not identify any of Edyard Carter swore that Levangie told him, that day, that the driver was light-complected. Levangie’s ‘identification’ was the only evidence introduced to show Van- zetti’s presence at the murder scene, “Does Gov. Fuller believe that the prosecution acted worthily in its handling of the bullet evidence? He Says Reporter at Famous Trial |says nothing about Captain Proctor’s * affidavit in his report. Yet in that affidavit Proctor has sworn that Dis- trict Attorney Katzman tried to get him to testify that the bullet which killed one of the payroll guards came from Sacco’s pistol. Proctor refused to Sacco’s pistol. Proctor refused to testify thus, and so by arrangement, when Katzmann asked Proctor in court what was his opinion on the question whether the mortal bullet could have been fired from the Sacco pistol, Proctor answered: ‘My opin- ion is that it is consistent with hav- ing been fired by that pistol.’ Thus the gun evidence was turned against Sacco, without. Proctor actually hay- ing expressed the belief that the mortal bullet was fired from his gun. Lawyer Bungled Bridgewater Defense. “The governor touches briefly up- on the conviction of Vanzetti for the Bridgewater holdup attempt, point- ing out that Vanzetti did not take the stand; that he waived the privilege of telling his own story to the jury, and did not subject himself to cross- examination. There was good reason for that, as Mr. Fuller has been told. “Vanzetti did not take the stand because his attorneys, Vahey and Graham, would not let him. They obviously bungled the case in many ways, At that time, too, Vanzetti spoke English badly. . . . But he took the stand at the murder trial in Ded- ham. Governor “Believed” Testimony. “Gov. Fuller says of the first trial of Vanzetti: ‘I have talked with the government witnesses who saw the Bridgewater holdup and who identi- fied Vanzetti, and I believe their tes- timony to be substantially correct. I believe with the jury that Vanzetti was guilty and his trial was fair... In the Bridgewater case practically everyone who witnessed the attempted hold-up and who could have identified the bandits identified Vanzetti.’ “If we are to believe that Gov. Ful- ler was sincere in his investigation, his comment on the Bridgewater case proves that that inquiry was superfi- cial and inadequate. “Did he read the trial record in the Bridgewater case? “If he did read it, does he actually believe the testimony of Maynard Freeman Shaw, 14-year-old high school prodigy? This boy ‘identified’ Vanzetti as the shot-gun man to whom he was no closer than 140 feet. Here is a bit of his testimony: Could Tell Nationality by Way He Ran! “T could tell he was:a foreigner by the way he ran.” “What sort of a foreigner?” “Either Italian or Russian. .. .” “Does an Italian or a Russian run differently from a Swede or a Nor- wegian?” “Yeu,” “What is the difference?” “Unsteady.” Saw Gun Smoke Thru Building. “If Gov. Fuller read the record, does he believe the testimony of Mrs. Georgina Brooks? She ‘identified’ Vanzetti as not of the men she saw in an automobile while on her way to the New Haven depot with a child. She testified that she saw ‘fire and smoke from a gun’ while she stood in a window of the depot, 75 feet back from Broad street and 300 feet from Hale street where the hold-up took place. % “But she could not possibly have seen ‘fire and smoke from a gun’ be- cause a two-story house completely shuts off an observer in the window mentioned from any view of the crime area! Moustache Testimony Changed. “If Gov. Fuller read the record, ,does he believe the testimony of Ben- jamin F. Bowles, pay-truck guard? He ‘identified’ Vanzetti at the trial as the shotgun man. Bowles swore at the preliminary hearing that the shotgun man’s moustache was ‘short and croppy.’ But presently it became noised about that three,Plymouth po- licemen would testify for the defense that Vanzetti’s moustache had been full and flowing for years. So at the trial Bowles changed his testimony and swore that the shotgun man’s moustache was ‘bushy.’ Height Changed to Suit Prosecutor. “Does Gov. Fuller believe the tes- timony of Paymaster Alfred E. Cox? He also reversed his testimony. At the preliminary hearing he declared that the shotgun man, in contrast to the other bandit, was ‘short and of slight build’ (Page 11, preliminary record), the ‘short’ fellow of the at- tacking party. But at the trial, where jit was revealed that Vanzetti was not |a short man, Cox testified that the |shotgun man was about five feet ‘eight inches tall. | “Does Gov. Fuller believe Frank |W. Harding? He at first stated that |the shotgun bandit was ‘smooth- |shaven,’ according to the Boston |Globe of Dec. 24, 1919, But at the preliminary hearing, he testified that the shotgun man had ‘an overgrown Charlie Chaplin moustache.’ ” Two Killed in Collision | _BUFFALO, N. Y., Aug. 8.—Two men were dead today and a twelve- year-old boy lay seriously injured following a collision between a milk truck and a passenger automobile here. Oscar Grossman, 24 of Forks, N. Y., driver of the truck, was instantly killed and Fred Simcox, 21, riding in the automobile died today in the hos- pital. Oscar Grossman, Jr. 12, was the boy injured,