The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 16, 1921, Page 4

| t ¥ i , rors alleged by counsel in appeal to gLy Did A. C. Townley Have a Fair Trial? Here Are the Facts About the Hearing at Jackson, Minn., as Taken From . the Records—What Do You Think About Them? N APRIL 29 the supreme court of Minnesota ruled on the 102 errors alleged in the trial of A. C. Townley and Joseph Gil- bert at Jackson, Minn, Not denying that errors had been com- mitted in the trial, the supreme court ruled that none of these were “sub- stantial” and that Townley and Gil- nert must serve their sentences. The supreme court of Minnesota is 2 high court, but not the highest court in the land. The highest court is the court of public opinion. The Nonpar- tisan Leader herewith submits to the court of public opinion the facts in the ! Townley case. s A. C. Townley was indicted and tried for conspiracy in a county in which he had never set foot prior to his trial. He was charged with being re-' sponsible for statements on the part of another man whom he had never seen and who was never ar- rested. He was charged with attempt- ing to hinder the war in speeches, delivered in other counties — speeches which federal authorities declared were helping the war. He was tried by a judge who had previously expressed his hos- tility in an uncontradicted news- paper interview and who showed it constantly throughout the trial. The principal witness against him was a ‘man taken out of jail in/order to testify—a man who had been indicted by federal au- thorities for disloyaity, but who has never been brought to trial. His false testimony the defense was not allowed to impeach. The case was submitted to the jury without argument, the court refusing Mr. Townley the right to present the case in his own behalf. The court likewise refused all instructions to the jury offered by his attorneys. These are only a part of the 102 er- the supreme court. To show the en- tire unfairness of the proceedings against Mr. Townley it is necessary to start four years ago and consider the circumstances in their order. TOWNLEY PROSECUTED BECAUSE HE ADVOCATED CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH The first point to be considered.is that Mr. Townley’s prosecution was based on the fact' that he was the first man in the fight for con- scription of war profits, a program which was extremely unpopular with the profiteers, though the justice of this principle is now uni- versally recognized. On April 6, 1917, the United States entered the world war. It was apparent at once that the cost of the war would be tremendous, both in man power and in money. Congress passed without delay the draft act, providing for the conscription of the man power needed for the army. Congress, however, hesitated for week after week upon the question of how to raise the money for the war. * Mr. Townley had no hesitation in stating what he thought should be done. In a series of meetings in North Dakota early in 1917 he announced the principle of the conscription of wealth to meet the cost of the war. In meeting after meeting he used substantially these words: “The country needs lives and money to win this war for freedom and democracy. The government has drafted the lives it needs. It has gone, not to the old men who have very little of their lives left, but to the young men who have most of life. The government will take what it needs of men’s lives | OUR GOVERNMENT TESTIMONIAL l 3ton5)arhsan Sieaéer b patniotic servicesjor the %ed/fi% /erduz};;fiepmodqf /6, i The splendid morale oftéepmalzumeM mfe%fl?mawqfl‘l;efimq{ (S 110 small mreasure dae /otéemmemflarzqffie aaiwflsmgpzq@ The certificate reproduced above was awarded the Nonpartisan Leader by the federal government in recognition of our services during the war. The Leader was advocating exactly what Mr. Townley was advocating—the conscription of war profits. The certificate bears the signatures of George Creel, chairman of the committee on public information; Robert Lansing, secretary of state; New- ton D. Baker, secretary of war; Josephus Daniels, secretary of the navy; Carl Byoir, associate chairman. from those who have the most to give. When the war is over it will give back, to their families and friends and sweethearts, what of these men’s lives is left, and no more. “Why should money be treated more considerately than men’s lives? We go to those who have most of life, take what we need, and give back what is left and no more. Why should we not go to those who have the most wealth, take what wealth is needed, give back what is left, and no more? “Unless we do this a tremendous war debt will be piled up and the boys who were called upon to give their lives, or so much of their lives as were needed, will also have to pay the money cost of the war.” Mr. Townley at every meeting urged support of the war by the farmers and at most of the meetings substantial collections for the Red Cross were taken: When the series of meetings were started in North Dakota unfriendly newspapers declared Mr. Townley’s speeches’ were seditious. They put in his mouth words that he had never said. As a result of these misrepresentations two things happened. Federal secret service agents were assigned to Mr. Townley’s meetings. They heard what he said and reported back to their chiefs that the speeches were highly patnotlc and were designed to help the government win the war, rather than to help the government’s enemies, as the anti-League papers had claimed. The other thing that happened was that Mr. Townley secured a shorthand reporter who accompanied him at all other speeches during the progress of the war, tak- PAGE FOUR ing down every word that was said, so that it would be impossible for enemies to misquote him and get away with it. According to the Kansas committee which recently investigated the League in North Dakota, Mr. Townley was the first man in the United States to urge the principle of the conscrip- tion of war profits. He did so in the face of the.almost unanimous opposi- tion of the daily press and politicians, who ca){eéi him disloyal, treasonable and pro*German and shrieked daily for his arrest. scription of war profits when it was unpopular to do so. Now the princi- ple of the conscription of war profits is recognized as so just and popular that the president of the United States de- clared for it in his inaugural.address two months ago. ; COURT RULES OUT CONSPIRACY EVIDENCE Second, the case against Town- % ley was only one of dozens of cases brought against members, leaders and .- candidates of the League, these cases having been brought in an apparent conspir- acy to defeat the League during the 1918 campaign in Minnesota. The 1918 campaign in Minnesqta was one of particular bitterness. In town after town League representa- tives and candidates were denied their constitutional rights of free speech and peacable assemblage. Mobs were organized to break up League meet- ings and League members and speak- ers were tarred and feathered, driven from the streets with fire hoses and their houses daubed with yellow paint. In a final effort to defeat the League a series of arrests of League speakers and members occurred. A number of i cases were brought against Mr. Town- ; ley personally. The plotters went so far as to arrest the League candidate for governor on the eve of the pri- mary_election, hoping thus to brand him & “disloyal.” The cases against him and others were dismissed after elections, thus proving their falsity. In other cases Leaguers were acquitted, or where they were convicted the su- preme court threw out the convictions. In only one case was a conviction upheld—that of Joseph Gilbert at Red Wing. Following the election there were no further ar- rests. At the Townley trial attorneys for the de- fense offered testimony to show that the cases were all brought as a conspiracy, directed from offices of an anti-League organization in St. Paul, but the court refused to allow this testimony to be heard. It is further worthy of note that while Mr. Town- ley’s arrest was timed to occur during the campaign in Minnesota in 1918, his trial in Jackson county was timed, after postponements on the part of the prosecuting attomey, to occur during the crucial referendum campaign in North Dakota in 1919 and Mr. Townley was compelled to abandon his speak- ing tour in this campaign to go to the trial at Jackson. The case against Mr. Townley was not a charge of treason or sedition. If he had been guilty of disloyal conduct under the espionage act he would have been proceeded against by federal authorities and could have been sent to prison for 20 years or more, instead of being _sent to jail for 90 days, the maximum sentence “under the act he is charged with violating. The case against Mr. Townley in Jackson 'county was not based on any specific act or statement of Mr. Townley. It was a charge that Mr. Townley, Mr. Gilbert and others had “conspired” to break the -so-called Minnesota sedition law. Mr. Townley had never been in Jackson county, Mr. Townley advocated the con—>