The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 16, 1921, Page 5

A. C. TOWNLEY SAID THIS IN 1917 Following is the statement of Mr. Townley in his speech at Glencoe, Minn., June 21, 1917, in favor of conscription of wealth. This portion of his speech was used by the prosecution_at Jackson to “prove” that Mr. Townley was ‘‘disloyal’ : I don’t believe it is right for, us to go to war, put thé nation some billions of dollars in debt and then when the war is over ask these boys to come back and pay off the war debt. We are one big family. There is no reason why we should pay after the war is over some billions of dollars to the war profiteers when we are sending our boys over to die. Let’s see whether this is right, to take our surplus wealth to finance the war. The rich man is not going to go; he is making the rules of the game. ~These boys-will give the biggest sacrifice men can make—their lives. Hun- dreds of thousands and millions of the best hoys we have will be sacrificed; they will lose their arms and legs, their sight and hearing, and come back to their fathers, mothers, sis- ters and sweethearts. The government will give back what is left and no more. When the war is over you will get only that dreary mes- " sage that what remains of your boy you may have. So we praepose that as there is a God in heaven we are not going to permit these men to come back to pay off this war debt. We will not shoulder on their backs this greater burden after the sacrifices they have made. We propose that this nation shall take so much of the surplus wealth of our nation and use it now, and when the-war is over give back as much of the wealth as is left and no more. where the case was brought. The excuse for bring- ing the case in Jackson county was that a League organizer, said to be named Irving’ Friday or Frei- tag, had made a statement in that county that when the League got into power it would have, the con- scription law repealed. How ridiculous this was is shown by the fact that Mr. Townley was not only upholding the conscription act, but was urging this as an argument for conscription of wealth. However, the Jackson county prosecutor, E. H. -Nicholas, charged that because Mr. Townley was at the head of the League he could be held responsible for the statements of the man Friday or Freitag, although Mr. Townley had not hired this man and had not even seen him. Mr. Townley and Mr. Gilbert were indicted, ar-' rested and brought to trial. never arrested. Why were the interests opposed to Mr. Townley so anxious to have him tried in Jackson county, which he had never visited ? JUDGE DEAN SHOWS PREJUDICE IN NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW The judge in Jackson county and Martin county, adjoining it, was E. C. Dean, who had shown his bitter prejudice against the Nonpar- tisan league and against Mr. Townley. In the St. James (Minn.) Plaindealer on April 28, 1918, Judge Dean was quoted as follows: “There are no Nonpartisan league candidates for office in Martin county nor will there be. We are suspicious of them and have barred them out. Most of the rank and file of the League’s membership are doubtless perfectly honest, but the platform of the organization is an appeal to class interest and prejudice and it seems to me there is something sinister behind the whole thing. True, the leaders make great professions of helping the president win the war and their talk is surely sugar-coated and on the outside looks gobd. “It reminds me of the time when I was a boy. My mother thought at one time that I needed a pill, so she made me swallow one. It was sugar-coated Friday or Fre'tag was and didn’t taste at all bad, but, believe me, it had the goods with it, as after results showed. “So it is with the Nonpartisan league propagan- da. Tt is sugar-coated and the farmers are asked to shut their eyes and swallow it whole without examination. The leaders and the inner circle of Socialist agitators do all the thinking and formu- late the platform. “The rank and file have nothing to do but vote as the leaders tell them. Supposing these leaders— demagogues like Townley and others—could . con- vigce a lot of farmers that they were not being) W. G. HARDING SAYS ' THIS IN 1921 Following is the portion of President Harding’s in- augural address, at Washington, D. C., March 4, 1921, dealing with the same subject, and showing that Presi- dent Harding mnow takes the same ground that Mr. Townley took four years ago: p If * * * war is again forced upon us, I earnestly hope a way may be found which will unify our individual and collective . strength and consecrate all America, materi- ally and spiritually, body and soul, to na- tional defense. I can vision the ideal republic where every man and woman is called under the flag for assignment to duty, for whatever service, military or civid, the individual is best fitted; where we may call to universal service every plant, agency or facility, all in the sub- lime sacrifice for country, and not_one penny of war profit shall inure to the benefit of pri- vate individual, corporation or combination, but all above the normal shall flow into the defense chest of the nation. There is some- thing inherently wrong, something out of ac- cord with the ideals of representative democ- racy when one portion of our citizenship turns its activity to private gain amid defensive war, while another is fighting, sacrificing or dying for national preservation. Out of such universal service will conte a new unity of spirit and purpose,-a new confi- dence and consecration, which would make our defense impregnable, our triumph assured. Then we should have little or no disorganiza- tion of our economic, industrial and commer- cial systems at home, no staggering war debts, no swollen fortunes to flout the sacri- fices of our_soldiers * * * paid enough for their wheat and they should refuse to sell it. Don’t you see how such a move would disorganize the government’s war plans? I don’t say this will be done or is contemplated, but I say it might be done and I believe that some of the leaders of the Nonpartisan league are unscrupulous enough to do it. The campaign of class prejudice which they and their papers are waging has no good in it.” = Judge Dean allowed this interview to stand with- out repudiation or attempt at correction for more than a year. After Mr. Townley had been brought before him for trial, he attempted to justify his at- titude to lawyers for the defense. Later still he is- sued a statement from the bench in his own ‘defense. in which he failed to deny ‘that he had made sub- stantially the statements set forth above, but said the statement was made in private conversation and was “published in violation of newspaper ethics.” G Judge Dean’s characterization of Mr. Townley as a “Socialist agitator,” a “demagogue,” etc., showed his bias plainly enough. The federal courts have ruled dgain and again that a judge who shows his prejudice against a defendant is unfit to try the case. Only recently the supreme court of the Unit- ed States reversed the conviction of Victor Berger of Milwaukee because Judge Landis had shown his prejudice against Berger just as Judge Dean show- ed his prejudice against Mr. Townley. JUDGE DEAN’S UNFAIRNESS SHOWN THROUGHOUT TRIAL Finally, the bias owaudge Dean, as shown in the St. James interview, was also shown N throughout the trial of the case. One instance of this was the refusal to allow Mr. Townley to introduce any evidence to show the sup- port that the Nonpartisan league had rendered the government in the conduct of the war, Red Cross subscriptions and the like. Witnesses for the prose- cution were allowed to say that they regarded Mr. Townley’s speeches as disloyal. Dozens of farmer witnesses were on_hand ready to testify that they considered the speeches patriotic. Passing on this point the Minnesota supreme coyrt says: “Reliance is placed on a line of English decisions holding that in a trial for treason the speeches and publications of the accused showing his loyalty are competent evidence. It is, therefore, asserted that the court erred in excluding Townley’s other speeches. A sufficient answer to this is that he was not on trial for treason or sedition.” A second instance of unfairness was the refusal of Judge Dean to allow Mr. Townley to address the jury in his own behalf. There is no instance in any trial in the history of the United States in which a defendant has been denied the right to address the jury under similar circumstances. This right was repeatedly granted by the United States courts ir trials for violation of the sedition act. Because this right-has never been questioned there is but one in- stance of a supreme court ruling upon it. In this case, the Massachusetts case of the Commonwealth (Continued on page 15) Banker Attempts to Intimidate Farmer JOS ZICK.racsioent JNO C BELL vice pres” R.R.QOWDY.caswien # s THE SERVICE BANK Montrose, Colo. . Dear Sir T ticket for Yours truly! 5 CAP!TAL AND SURPLUS $ 120,000.00 We. hand you herewith deposit - $ 49.98; the proceeds of your note recieved today to be used with the understanding that none of this money is to be paid the Non-Partisan League. HE nefarious and illegal at- tempt of a Colorado bank- er to intimidate a League farmer is evidenced by this letter, the original of which is held by the Leader. Mr. Hurlburt refused tc be bulldozed by the banking gang. Just as local bankers are MONTROSE.CoLO. : trying to keep indi- Apr 11 '1921' vidual farmers from 5 joining the League, the Wall street bankers are trying to prevent the state of North Dakota from selling its bonds. But the state of North Dakota is refusing to be bull- dozed, just as this farmer did. It is going ahead with its campaign and it is winning success. Casniers