Ashworth made another call. He said that he called the man's employer, and that Edwards had gone to work and was making no effort to return to Selma. Ashworth also said that Edwards had been a resident of Selma on March ninth. (There is no indication that the prosecution had exhausted all efforts in trying to obtain the testimony of this witness, and there is a Federal fugitive statute which makes it a Federal offense for a material witness to flee from the jurisdiction of a state in order to avoid giving testimony. In any event, the subject of this testimony is not known.)

This ended the State's case. The defense moved for a directed verdict as to the Hoggle brothers, and the Judge denied this request.

The defense then made its opening statement, and indicated that it would show that the defendants were not present, that there were intervening events which caused Reeb's death, and that, in fact, the death was caused by a fourth person. The first witness called by the defense was Selma Public Safety Director, Wilson Baker.

Mr. Baker testified that there was a great deal of tension in Selma on the day of the fatal attack, but was prohibited from testifying by the Court as to what caused the tension. The questions indicated that the defense was trying to show that it was caused by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights workers who were in town. The defense attorney, in a speech after the judge excluded the statements, charged that the civil rights workers needed a "martyr," and that these groups were willing to let him die. He said, "I propose to show (by the questions) that there was motivation on the part of other persons to injure Rev. Reeb or willfully permit him to die . . . There was motivation on the part of certain civil rights groups to have a martyr ." Baker admitted that his department received the first call on the assault from a nurse at Burwell Infirmary, and placed the time around 7:50 p.m. He said that he sent patrol No. 22. He testified that he was unable to afford protection to all of the people in town on that day. Baker further testified that he had been looking for Floyd Grooms since that day in connection with the attack.

Following Baker, F. J. Ellison, a Selma policeman who was in Car 22, the car sent to the Burwell Infirmary, said that he interviewed both Miller and Olsen at the infirmary with respect to being able to identify the individuals who attacked them. They said that they were unable to identify the individuals. On cross-examination, it was learned, however, that what the policeman meant by identification was ability to swear out a warrant and identify the attackers by name.

Following Ellison's testimony, General MacArthur Brown testified that he was in the restaurant, but had not eaten there. He testified that it was approximately 7:00 p.m. when he followed three ministers out the restaurant and followed them down Washington Street to Selma Avenue and saw nothing happen. He did say, however, that he saw Cook standing in the doorway of his store when he left. He placed the time around 7:00 p.m. He further testified, on crossexamination, that he was a friend of Cook and that he did not know whether or not the three men that he followed were the three men who were later attacked. He testified that there were other white men in the Cafe that night, and the three could have been others. He denied that he had told the FBI agents that Stanley Hoggle stood and looked into the window of the Cafe while he was inside.

The next witness was Mr. George Hamm, a retired Baptist minister working as a janitor in a local factory. He appeared to be a rather reluctant witness. He testified that he had gone into the Silver Moon Cafe to try to make a telephone call between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. When the phones were busy, he decided to telephone from outside, on Washington Street. He placed the time of his call at around 7:30 p.m. Hamm testified that he noticed an assault on the other side of Washington Street and it looked like somebody running together. He said that it wasn't light and it wasn't dark. After the assault, he went into the Coffee Pot Cafe where he saw Edgar B. Vardaman, who was standing at a counter. He was unable to identify any other individual in the Cafe. He was unable to identify the attackers, as they "just flushed out like birds." He did see an individual drop to his knees or all the way to the pavement.

The next witness to take the stand was Edgar B. Vardaman, who stated that he went into the Coffee Pot Cafe with O'Neal Hoggle, and that he (Hoggle) was making a telephone call when Hamm came into the Cafe and mentioned the incident. Vardaman, however, testified that he was sitting down when he spoke to Hamm.

Vardaman then identified three sets of clothing which he remembered were the exact clothes which the three defendants wore that day. One was a blue service station uniform, worn by O'Neal Hoggle, another was a suit worn by Cook, and the third was a port jacket worn by Stanley Hoggle. Needless to say, on cross-examination. Vardaman admitted that he wasn't sure that they were the same clothes. He further testified that he was a business associate of O'Neal Hoggle. (This witness is the brother of one of the jurors, and it should be pointed out that the State should have known of the relationship prior to the time the jury was selected, because the defense had listed their prospective witnesses and had had them sequestered. Also, the witness himself probably should have known that he was to be called because the nature of his testimony was that of an alibi witness which means that he must have gone over it with the defense. In any event, it is apparent that the prosecution should have moved for a mistrial because of the relationship between the witness and the juror. It would be difficult for a juror to disbelieve his own brother's testimony.) Following Vardaman to the stand, the manager of the Coffee Pot Cafe, Mrs. Frances Bowden, testified that O'Neal Hoggle was there about 7:30 p.m. She further testified that she left with Vardaman to go to supper at the Bamboo Club. Following Mrs. Bowden's testimony, Paul Woodson, one of the owners of the Bamboo Club, testified that he saw all of the defendants at the Club between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the night of March ninth.

On cross-examination, Woodson testified that he could not remember any other person at the Club that night, and he did not remember Mrs. Bowden and Mr. Vardaman. Following Woodson's testimony, the other owner of the Bamboo Club testified that he was at the bar and that the only person he recognized in the Club that night was Cook. He did not see the other defendants, nor could he remember the names of any other persons in the Club, even though he was familiar with both Vardaman and Mrs. Bowden.

The next witness to testify was J. South, a bread man, testifying that he was at Buchanan's Service Station with Charles Buchanan. He saw the ambulance go by, hearing toward Birmingham, and decided to follow that ambulance, since it was going in the direction of his home. The ambulance turned around, and he followed it back to the radio station where it stopped. He said that it was traveling at a slow rate of speed on the way back. He examined the ambulance and found nothing wrong with it, but another ambulance came along with a faulty signal light which he fixed. He further testified that he left the radio station briefly to get Mr. Buchanan to have him call the police, as he felt that something funny was going on. South testified that it was some 30 to 50 minutes before the ambulance departed, and that no one was doing anything for the patient during that time. On cross-examination, South admitted that he was making it his business to find out what was going on. (The implication was that he was a trouble maker.)

Following South's testimony, Charles Buchanan, the owner of the service station, testified that he saw the ambulance go by his station as he was closing up, and that he later had a chance to examine the ambulance at the radio station and found that there was nothing wrong with the tires.

The next witness to be called was Paul Bodiford, an auto repairman. He testified that he arrived at the Silver Moon Cafe at about 6:30 p.m., after observing the rally at Brown's Chapel and the march on Water Street. He said that he drank beer inside the Cafe for 30 or 40 minutes and then went outside, and that he saw nothing happen until he left at about 8:00 p.m. He testified that he was standing outside for most of the time between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., except when he went to get a bottle of wine. He said that he was standing with Floyd Grooms, and that Grooms had been talking and was telling him about a fight with a group of civil rights workers and of Grooms' attempt to upset a station wagon. Bodiford said that he had not seen Grooms since. He said that another man, Winston Smith, was standing outside with him. With this testimony, the defense rested its case. The time was about 11:20 a.m.

Before lunch the prosecution made a brief argument. Mr. Ashworth told the jury that he expected that they would do their duty as jurors; that they would find a true verdict according to their consciences. He told the jury that he was not "sticking up" for the civil rights workers, but that the system of justice was on trial. He told them it was an important case and they must do their duty, "as he knew they would."

After the brief opening (about five minutes), the jury went to lunch. After lunch, the defense argued and reviewed the evidence. The defense rested heavily on the lack of identification implicating the two Hoggles. Very little was said about the defendant Cook, except that he did not deliver the blow. Argument was made concerning the injuries not being the same and that the treatment which Rev. Reeb received was "grossly negligent."

Following the defense's argument, the prosecution closed by pointing out that the Judge would charge that the defendant Cook need not be identified as being the person delivering the blow, as long as he was a member of a group, one of which did deliver the blow.

The Judge's charge to the jury was very good, in my opinion. He charged with respect to each and every element of manslaughter in the first and second degree and murder in the first and second degree, and said that they could find each and every defendant guilty of any one of these offenses. He also charged that it was not necessary to identify the defendant who struck the blow; that it was only necessary to find one or all of the defendants were part of a group that contained an individual who struck the fatal blow. (The law of Alabama, much like that of the Federal Government, has abolished the distinction between ac cessories before and after the fact, as well as principals in the first and second degree.) The Judge continually used Cook as an example in the charge, but at all times, he made it clear that what he was saying applied to the Hoggle brothers, as well.

The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" as to all defendants in 97 minutes after they began deliberations, a most unusual occurrence.

There was no real defense offered for the defendant Cook, except that during the day he was wearing a dark suit, as compared to what Mr. Miller and Mr. Olsen described as a light suit. The defense's own witnesses clearly put Elmer Cook at the scene, and the State's witnesses made him one of the attackers. The Judge charged that this would be enough to convict. The jury took only a limited hour and one-half to determine otherwise. In my opinion, the case involving Cook should have taken a great deal longer to consider. This belief is bolstered by the reported fact (although inadmissable as evidence) that Elmer Cook had been arrested 25 times and charged with assault and battery on 17 occasions.

THE REEB MURDER TRIAL IN SELMA

The acquittal of the three defendants in the trial relating to the murder of our colleague, the Rev. Mr. James J. Reeb, was held in Selma early in December. Rev. Orloff Miller and Rev. Clark Olsen, who were with Reeb on the night of the fatal attack, were witnesses. Also present in the courtroom was Daniel B. Bickford, special counsel to the Unitarian Universalist Association and a Boston attorney, and the Rev. Mr. Walter Royal Jones, chairman of the Unitarian Universalist Commission on Religion and Race. The presence of all four was made possible through grants from the Unitarian Universalist Freedom Fund.

The day after the verdict was announced, a press conference was held at 25 Beacon Street involving Dr. Dana McLean Greeley and Mr. Bickford. Their prepared statements are given below. The Commission on Religion and Race is making available longer statements by Mr. Bickford and by Mr. Jones and these may be obtained gratis from the Commission at 25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108.

One method of protesting the acquittal of the men accused of James Reeb's murder is to work for new federal legislation to strengthen the judicial process in the South. The Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association adopted a resolution on protection against racial assault in their meeting on October 12, 1965. The Washington Office of the denomination is now working closely with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for the enactment of such legislation early in the next session of Congress. Further information will be available in the SR Newsletter.-H.A.J.

DR. DANA M'LEAN GREELEY'S STATEMENT

The martyrdom of James J. Reeb is of deep and immeasurable concern to our denomination and, of course, to the entire nation. I found people this past summer in South Vietnam, in Europe, and even in Eastern Europe identifying James

Reeb with the best in our American democratic heritage. Therefore I fear what will be the worldwide reaction to this failure of justice in Selma yesterday.

We are dismayed to learn that the trial of the men accused of murdering the Rev. James Reeb and injuring two of our other ministers, the Rev. Orloff W. Miller and the Rev. Clark B. Olsen, has ended with what seems to be much less than justice.

Of course, revenge is not what anyone seeks. Jim Reeb is dead, and his ministry and life are now part of history.

On the other hand, rapid acquittal by the Selma, Ala., jury suggests that there is little protection under Southern justice from the violence perpetrated upon members of minority groups and upon persons trying to assist those minority groups to secure their legitimate rights.

This is one of the great unresolved problems involving civil rights in this country, and it is extremely disappointing to me that once again it appears that a Southern jury has refused to come to grips with this problem.

The rapid acquittal suggests that the jury did not take seriously the testimony of our two ministers who survived the attack last March ninth. It seems clear to us upon reading the testimony that one of the defendants should have been found guilty after being definitely identified.

All Americans should be aroused by the Selma acquittals, which leave unresolved the murder of James Reeb. Those guilty of the bombings, the beatings, the killings, and the snipings in the dark cannot remain unconfronted. The violence has to be checked.

We feel that the state of Alabama did not press hard enough for conviction of these men, but we understand that the Department of Justice has this case under consideration and intends to present evidence to the Federal Grand Jury.

We earnestly hope for the democratic accomplishment of justice in this and all comparable situations and urge again such federal legislation as in the future will strengthen the judicial process.

Our special counsel, Mr. Daniel B. Bickford, of Ely, Bartlett, Brown and Proctor and former U.S. Attorney, who observed the conduct of the trial, will discuss this trial in greater detail.

MR. DANIEL B. BICKFORD'S STATEMENT

The following questions arise from observing the trial of the defendants in the so-called Reeb murder trial.

Having in mind that the Circuit Solicitor or prosecutor, Blanchard McLeod, had told newsmen in an interview prior to the trial that "I don't have a very strong case," the question must be asked as to what efforts the Solicitor employed to obtain witnesses to this fatal attack. One witness described as a "material witness" did not appear, apparently having moved to Mississippi. Another apparent witness to the fatal attack was disqualified by the Judge as mentally incompetent, without any indication what the testimony was on the basis of a Selma physician's testimony from a reading of the man's medical records, the last entry being made in 1959. No effort was made by the Solicitor to qualify this witness. This would not have been difficult in view of the fact that the witness had testified that he understood the oath and he knew the difference between truth and fantasy. His credibility may have been questioned, but should not his testimony have been heard?

Another question must be asked regarding the impaneling of a juror who was a brother of one of the defenders' key witnesses. The witness was known to be a defense witness prior to the impaneling of the jury. Should not the relationship of the juror to the prospective witness have been brought to the attention of the court either by the defendant's counsel or by the juror himself? Should not the Solicitor have moved for a mis-trial when he heard of the relationship after the testimony of the witness?

The question of the propriety of the Sheriff appearing in the jury room during the deliberation and vote is a question which must be resolved.

The most difficult problem facing the Solicitor in this case was the empaneling of a jury which would receive the evidence in a murder trial involving a civil rights worker. The Solicitor did propound one question to the prospective jurors regarding their prejudice to hear the evidence. However, the question was propounded to the jury as a group. Although three jurors did respond that it would affect their deliberations, the other jurors stood mute. The court determined, and the Solicitor accepted, the findings that silence was tantamount to a negative

answer. The question now should be asked as to whether a juror should have been asked to volunteer that he was prejudiced or whether the Solicitor should have examined each juror individually with respect to each juror's prejudices in respect to civil rights workers?

PROTECTION AGAINST RACIAL ASSAULT

Whereas, enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has made possible great advances toward equality of rights and opportunity for all Americans in the areas of education, public accommodations and facilities, employment, Federal-aid programs, and the exercise of the franchise; and

Whereas, the full and free exercise of these new rights and opportunities is dependent on the safety of the individual from intimidation, coercion, and bodily harms, or threats of bodily harm; and

Whereas, many brave men and women, including ministers of this free faith, working to secure these rights and opportunities for themselves and their fellow men, have suffered bodily harm and even death in the effort; and

Whereas, the Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association is mindful of its responsibility to those of its own ministers and laymen who are risking their lives in the cause of racial justice and brotherhood, and is mindful of its concern for the safety and well-being of all those engaged in the movement for equal rights and opportunities;

Be it therefore resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges the Justice Department to press with renewed vigor the prosecution under existing law, of those guilty of the beatings, the shootings, the bombings and the killings; and

Further resolves that the Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges the President to recommend and the Congress to enact new Federal legislation at the earliest moment to protect the security of the individual from assault or threatened assault upon his person or property, where that assault has a racial purpose or effect; and to provide civil damages for the victim of such assault.

Adopted October 12, 1965.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 14, 1965]

MURDER UNPUNISHED

The name of the Rev. James J. Reeb can now be added to a sad, strange honor roll. Other names on that roll read: Andrew Goodman, Michael Shwerner, James Chaney, Mrs. Viola Liuzzo, Medgar Evers, Jimmy Lee Jackson and Jonathan Daniels. Negro and white, cleric and layman, man and woman, they share the common fate that they died in the South for their civil rights convictions-and that their murders go unpunished.

The trial of the three men accused of Mr. Reeb's murder that ended the other day in an acquittal in Selma, Ala., was not an isolated event. It featured testimony by two eyewitnesses positively identifying one of the defendants as the leader of the gang that attacked the dead man. But their words carried no weight with a local jury apparently determined not to convict. Two months ago another jury in Haynesville, Ala., ignored equally compelling evidence in the murder of Jonathan Daniels, a New Hampshire seminarian.

Such verdicts have to be "expected from time to time. They are the price you have to pay for the jury system." That was the comment of Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach after the Hayneville fiasco. It seemed an inadequate response to the problem then; it is even more defective now.

The need is clear-as we have noted here before—for a law making it a Federal crime to commit an act of violence or to threaten violence with racial purpose or effect against any person. The United States Commission on Civil Rights recommended such a law last month; bills to this effect have been introduced in Congress by members of both parties but have not been acted upon because of Justice Department opposition.

One reason for that opposition is the reluctance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to become, in effect, a local police agency trying to solve local murders. The F.B.I.'s concern is understandable but exaggerated. The violence