be placed before the jail attacking the officers, agitating and directing the crowd, and he may be the man who threw the rope over the tree at the first hanging. Irving Adkins. Occupation, track foreman for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Address, Loretta, which is the first station from Princess Anne, where the old road crosses the new road on the way to Salisbury. Adkins was positively identified by Sergeant Dryden and Lieutenant Ridgely. Sergeant Dryden has known Adkins for some years, and he pointed him out to Lieutenant Ridgely at the time he first noticed him in front of the hotel. It is almost certain that Adkins will also be identified by several of the following officers: Randall, Serman, Durham, Weber, and Schleuter. Adkins was seen by Officer Dryden in front of the hotel when the crowd was gathering. He was the leader of this crowd and is the one who yelled "Let's go ", and led the crowd to the jail. He was subsequently seen by Lieutenant Ridgely at the south side of the jail and at the northeast intersection when Judge Duer made his speech. On both of these occasions he was yelling, "Come on; follow me; they won't shoot", and was leading or attempting to lead the crowd. It is believed that he is one of the men who had a hold of the ram at the jail which hit Officer Serman, and that he will be recognized as one of the first leaders of the crowd at the northeast intersection by Officer Durham, as well as a leader in front of the jail by Sergeant Weber. Positive identification by Officers Randall, Serman, Durham, Weber, and Bohler depends upon obtaining either a picture or seeing Adkins. William H. Thompson; occupation, unknown; address, Princess Anne, Md. Was picked out by Officers Bradley and Quandt as the seventh man on the coroner's jury from a photograph of the coroner's jury. He was in front of the jail, pushing against the police line, yelling to the crowd to get a pole, and had a hold of the ram with which it crashed the jail door. Jack Walloper, full name; is known as "Jack Walloper ", but his real name is reported to be Jack Sterling or Jackson Sterling or Randolph Sterling. Occupation, unknown; address, Crisfield, Md. Officer Wheeler has known him for some time and positively identified him as pulling on the rope at the second hanging. It is possible that he may be identified by Officers Wheeler, Cubbage, and Sergeant Weber upon being seen by them. If he is identified by Officers Wheeler, Cubbage, and Sergeant Weber, he will be in the crowd in front of the jail at the Deals Island intersection and at the first hanging, at all of which places he was a leader. Shelburn Lester; occupation, meterman for the Eastern Shore Public Service Co.; address, Salisbury, Md. Is identified by Officer Bradley before the jail, where he was yelling, going into the police, and in the front of the mob. He is supposed to be the man who hit Captain Johnson. Big Boy Smith; occupation, prizefighter; address, Salisbury, Md. Is known as Big Boy Smith." Fights under this name and is registered in the State Athletic Commission under this name. Smith is identified by Officer Durham, who recognized him and knew him, having seen him fight at Laurel. Is also recognized by Officer Bohler, who recognized the photograph of Smith when he was shown the same. Smith was in the front of the crowd at the northeast intersection on the north side of the jail, pushing against the police line. He was later seen by the side of the jail with a brick in his hand, which he refused to drop at the command of Officer Bohler. The next had to do with a man by the name of Gordon Butler, who was a brother of the woman who was alleged to have been raped. I might say in that connection, that the night the arrests were made the officers and those who thought they could identify him went to his house, and when they saw him they promptly said he was not the man they had in mind. For that reason, I do not think he would be a part of this proceeding, and therefore I do not read the one relating to him. The last one is as follows: Martin Duer. Occupation, unknown. Address, Pocomoke or Snow Hill, There are three Duers in Pocomoke and Salisbury, and it is impossible to know which Duer this is. A boy giving his name as Martin Duer can be identified at the first hanging with the rope in his hand while the Negro's body was on the ground with the rope at the first hanging, by Lieutenant Ridgely, Sergeant Weber, Officers Schleuter, Langrall, Kuhn, and possibly Corporal Wheeler. He was at the hanging holding the rope and by Officer Schleuter was seen pulling the rope. That was the information that was forwarded on November 15. Since that time there have been additional officers who have identified the four individuals who were arrested. There was one man who was arrested that is not in that list. His name is McQuay. He was arrested subsequent to the obtaining of that information. Sergeant Weber sought him out and recognized him. His name is contained in one of the exhibits that I gave the committee, but he was not among the original nine whose arrest I had asked. He is identified before the jail in the fight to get into the jail, by Sergeant Weber, Officers Bradley, Tower, Sprock, and also by Sergeant Haddaway. The reason for that was that from one of the officers in the early part of what transpired I learned there was a man by the name of McQuay in the crowd. The other officers gave a description of him, but did not know him by name and he was subsequently identified as the same individual. Some additional information or the same information in more brief form will be found in the document which has been marked "Exhibit R." I have on this exhibit added in pencil, with respect to each individual, the officers who will also identify them in their activities, with brief pencil notes as to what the text of the information would be. Senator DIETERICH. Is this a duplicate of what is in the record already? Attorney General LANE. It is a brief résumé of the larger record, and some supplements; that is, there is something additional to what is in the other record to the extent of the pencil notations. Senator DIETERICH. Why not substitute this for the other and then we will have what is already in the record with this additional information. Attorney General LANE. Some of this is inaccurate. Its accuracy could be best determined by reading the same condensed statements-not the first large statement, but the second one. Senator DIETERICH. Evidently you do not understand me. You have already in the record an exhibit that is a copy of this one with the exception of the pencil notations. Why not substitute this and then we will have what we already have in the record together with the pencil notations, and will not in that way encumber the record. Attorney General LANE. I gave you that copy first, and then took it back and am substituting this one for it. Senator DIETERICH. Very well; that makes it clear. Senator VAN NUYS. This last document has been marked "Exhibit R." Moving now to the question of the necessity for Federal legislation Attorney General LANE (interposing). There is just one other thing, Senator, if I may. Senator VAN NUYS. Certainly. Attorney General LANE. I do not know whether you want, in addition to that, any correspondence that I had with reference to the matter. You mentioned it before. Senator VAN NUYS. Yes. Please complete your statement. Attorney General LANE. Just to give the committee a brief outline of the progress of the investigation, I repeat that Armwood was arrested Monday, October 16, 1933, and the lynching occurred Wednesday night, October 18. On Friday of that week, October 20, Judge Pattison, who is chief judge of the first judicial circuit, called me on the telephone and asked me to go into it and assist the State's attorney. He pictured a deplorable situation. I called his attention to the fact that the constitution of Maryland requires an application of that kind to be made by the State's attorney of the county to the Governor, and the Governor directs the attorney general to assist. Mr. Robins, State's attorney, sent an open telegram to the Governor on Saturday, October 21. I began examination of the State police on Monday, October 23. After concluding that and getting the information in the form in which I have given it to the committee. I asked for a conference with the judges in Annapolis on Friday, November 3, at 2 p.m., stating that I had information that warranted in my opinion the arrest of those persons and raised the question as to how the arrest could or should be made. The judges said that they thought, under all the circumstances, it should be made by local officers, and they undertook to see the State's attorney and sheriff. I understand the conference of the judges and the State's attorney and the sheriff took place at Cambridge, on the Eastern Shore, on Monday, November 6. I again met Judge Pattison in Annapolis on November 8, and he asked me then to send information to Mr. Robins, which I did, with a letter dated November 15, as follows: Hon. JOHN B. ROBINS, State's Attorney, Crisfield, Md. NOVEMBER 15, 1933. DEAR MR. ROBINS: In compliance with your request to the Governor asking for my assistance in connection with the investigation to determine the persons responsible for the lynching of George Armwood at Princess Anne on the night of October 18, 1933, I have carried on an extensive investigation of this occurrence and have obtained information that warrants the immediate arrest of nine persons who participated in this crime. Copies of statements of witnesses who identify these participants are herewith enclosed, and from these copies you will observe that the following persons took part in the commission of the crime: Rusty Heath, William P. Hearn, Irving Adkins, William H. Thompson, Jack Walloper, Shelburn Lester, Big Boy Smith, Gordon Butler, and Martin Duer. The Lames, addresses, and occupations of e: ch of the witnesses are d-closed in the respective copies. To kill by lynching is to commit murder. The leading of the crowd to the jail, the assault up it, and any effort to break into it, or inciti:g the mob to do so, the taking of the Negro eut of the jail, are all a tert of the s me crime, and partie ants in t'e whole or any portion of the etme d'e eqally guilty and should be apprehended and prosecuted. I have heard it said that because of strong feelings of resenter and at imosity on the art of many people in the con tỷ 12 ást George Arnwood,. growing out of the beastly and Cutrage us crike whic le Lad el. there would be increpse q difficu ty in prosecut op. In my opina, the best way to Leet that situati nist arrests that the it ferm. net erelesed warts 91 n.mitting lagistrate fralaz I:. A W win hatu to justic 1. fere a informatio for the se* et on.mhet i ! • the card jury w ich ot may take the Tacter of the gely refuse to hod !! I re The means to be employed in bringing about the arrests can best be determined by you, because of your greater familiarity with local conditions. I have discussed this with the judges of the circuit, and they are definitely of the opinion that any arrests should be made by local officers. I had completed the investigation as disclosed by the enclosed papers last week, but when I found you intended to be away until today, I deferred sending them to you until your return. Very truly yours, -, Attorney General. I should say that the Gordon Butler mentioned in the letter is the brother to whom I referred previously and that has since been shown to be a case of misidentification. I received under date of November 16, 1933, a letter from Mr. Robins, reading as follows: GEORGE ARMWOOD LYNCHING CASE Hon. WILLIAM PRESTON LANE, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore Trust Building, Baltimore, Md. DEAR MR. LANE: I am acknowledging your communication bearing date November 15 with enclosures and have carefully read and considered the various statements of the witnesses examined by you. I agree with you as to your interpretation of the law as expressed in your said letter. I regret that I cannot agree with you as to the procedure that should be followed. You advise me to swear out warrants for the arrest of certain persons and have these parties apprehended by the sheriff and given a hearing before a justice of the peace. I cannot see the advantage of such a proceeding and doubt very seriously the wisdom thereof. You are in Baltimore and I believe do not visualize the situation here. The swearing out of such warrants and the apprehension of the parties would in my humble judgment create a condition that might be serious. The persons arrested would demand a hearing, and they would be so entitled, and this would attract a crowd, and if the magistrate should hold these parties without bond, which would be proper in view of the fact that they would be charged with murder, I hesitate to express my opinion as to what would then happen. We can not judge the temper of a crowd inflamed by passion, etc., and if these parties charged with the crime were committed to jail to await the action of a grand jury, I do not believe they would thus remain very long, and if the sheriff should endeavor to take them to Baltimore City for safe keeping I doubt seriously if it could be done without serious trouble. I have written as one sworn officer of the State to another sworn officer of the State, and though you may not agree with me, I ask that you may believe in my honesty of expression of my views. I cannot see the wisdom or the practical effect of such a procedure, because these people are all residents apparently of these parts, and there would not seem to be any danger of a failure to apprehend them if the grand jury should indict. And what would be the good of all this excitement and labor if the same could be peacefully carried into effect, if it should develop that the grand jury might not indict, and as you know an indictment is entirely within the province of such a body. My opinion is that this whole matter should be put before a grand jury for its determination. You apparently do not wish to go before the coroner's jury, and in view of the testimony I can understand why you would not wish to do that. I think I should ask the coroner to close the coroner's inquest, and if you will indicate when you and your witnesses will be available to appear before the grand jury the court will reconvene the grand jury and a full and exhaustive investigation of this case can be made. You appear to have some doubt as to the validity and legality of an indictment if you should appear in person before the grand jury, and I can understand your difficulty in this respect, but surely if you would hesitate to appear in person before that body I am able to be present, and with the written depositions you have furnished I could see that the grand jury was put into possession of all the facts you have brought out, as well as any other facts that other witnesses may present. The further advantage of a grand jury investigation is that in the event of an indictment the State could ask for a change of venue, and the cases could be tried in another county remote from the scene of the disturbance and excitement and bias. I await your further advices. JOHN B. ROBINS, The State's Attorney for Somerset County. I replied to this letter on November 17, as follows: Hon. JOHN B. ROBINS, State's Attorney, Crisfield, Md. NOVEMBER 17, 1933. DEAR MR. ROBINS: I have yours of the 16th instant, which I have carefully considered. You ask my further advice in view of the situation presented in your letter. As stated to you in my letter of the 15th instant, the character of the information that I sent you is so definite that no magistrate could legally refuse to hold those arrested for the action of the grand jury, and for the same reason the grand jury would not be justified in refusing to return indictments. If the reason for not making the arrests is because of the probability of interferences by an aroused crowd, then it would be incumbent upon the sheriff to obtain such assistance as may be necessary for him to perform his duty. I realize that in performing your responsibility you have first-hand information that is not available to me, but nevertheless, where the question arises as to whether law and order are to be maintained and the orderly administration of justice is to proceed, there should be but one answer. As expressed to you in my previous letter, I am of the opinion that you should have the sheriff make the arrests and bring the persons arrested before a committing magistrate for a hearing. Very truly yours, WM. P. LANE, Jr., Attorney General. In that connection also, because of previous conferences with the judges of that circuit, I sent copies of that correspondence to each of the three, accompanied by a letter in which I said: Hon. JOHN R. PATTISON, Cambridge, Md. NOVEMBER 18, 1933. DEAR JUDGE PATTISON: I think it is appropriate that you should have a copy of my letter to State's Attorney Robins, under date of November 15, enclosed with which I sent him the information that I had obtained in the investigation of the lynching of George Armwood, and from which I have deleted the names of the persons whose arrests I requested; a copy of his reply of November 16; and a copy of my further advice to him under date of November 17, all of which I herewith enclose. I am sending the enclosed to you, not only because I think you should be informed upon the subject, but also because I understand that the judges of the circuit will discuss the matter of procedure in the next day or two, and will no doubt also consult with State's Attorney Robins on the subject. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Attorney General, After my letter of November 17, I received a reply from Mr. Robins dated November 20, as follows: Hon. WILLIAM PRESTON LANE, Jr., The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. MY DEAR MR. LANE: Acknowledgment is made of the receipt of your letter of November 17, which was apparently given to the press in advance of its receipt by me, and in which you reiterate your request that I as State's attorney for Somerset County, swear out warrants before a magistrate for the arrest of the nine persons accused of the murder of George Armwood. I must refuse to grant this request. In the first place. I consider this circuitous procedure inadvisable, for the reason that the case must ultimately come before the grand jury, and I can see how the State's case might be seriously affected |