Ask the Scholar

Explaining the court system, recapitulating events, and referring to Clarence Darrow. On p. 7: two postscripts (the first dated 8 December 1926). Translation: Thanks her for her letter of November 16. Shocked to hear that she had heard nothing prior to 11 November. He gives a very detailed account of the legal interactions of the various Courts involved in the case; the importance of new evidence, new testimony; the relation of responsibility of state vs. federal powers; the Supreme Court of Massachusetts vs. the Supreme Court of the United States. Explains how judges are not elected but appointed and therefore open to private, capitalist pressures. Explains how revision of a sentence can be brought about, and when the Supreme Court may be involved. He points out that only if Federal law is violated can there be recourse to the United States Supreme Court (this portion is typed). Continued in holograph. Recapitulation of the events beginning 5 May 1920, going into considerable detail. Great emphasis on injustice at every step, what he thinks of Thayer, how things were misrepresented. Continues with brief explanation of how review process was refused until December 1924. Expresses great anger at “sadistic, capitalist press, but also “against us are not only the laws of State and Country, but those of Heaven and Hell. He says in the strongest terms what he thinks of Governor Fuller “who hates us to death, and is sure to refuse commutation of the sentence, which we do not want "[anyhow]. Nevertheless, he expressed the hope and expectation that he will win. A philosophical discussion on who made the laws and how this relates to their case. He becomes rather optimistic when talking of favorable public opinion. He expresses the hope that Clarence Darrow “greatest lawyer of the U.S. will enter the case. P.S. 8 December 1926: Hopes that if they can prolong the case for two more years they will have won. 2nd P.S. Expression of his feelings."