Untitled article by W. H. M.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 8, 1894

Trial of Seventh-day Adventists in Gainesville, Georgia.

By W. H. M.

THE cases of Elder W. A. McCutchen and Professor E. C. Keck, Seventh-day Adventists, of Gainesville, Ga., were reached in the City Court of Gainesville during the forenoon of Thursday, February 22. The cases were heard together, and occupied nearly the entire day. The trial was before Judge Marshall L. Smith and a jury.

The following morning the Atlanta Constitution contained this special correspondence in reference to the matter:—

GAINESVILLE, GA., February 22.—(Special.)—Rich in sensation and replete in novelty was the case of the State vs. Elder W. A. McCutchen and Professor E. C. Keck, of the Seventh-day Adventist sect, which came up for trial in the City Court of Hall County to-day. The defendants were indicted for working on Sunday.

The State was represented by Solicitor-General Howard Thompson and W. F. Findley, and the defendants appeared in their own defense. Four witnesses were introduced in behalf of the State, who testified that they saw the defendants at work in the Seventh-day Adventists’ Church here on Sunday of November 19, 1893. They were sawing, scribing and jointing lumber. The defendants made their statements and admitted doing the work, but claimed that they observed Saturday the seventh day, and therefore had no remorse of conscience. Elder McCutchen made a very clever argument in his own defense, lasting one hour and a half. He was followed by Professor Keck, who spoke less than five minutes. Colonel W. F. Findley then closed for the State, consuming an hour, and his honor, Marshall L. Smith, gave a clear and impartial charge to the jury which retired.

During the trial the courtroom was crowded. The ministers of the city were on hand in full force to hear the law and gospel both propounded in the courtroom. The jury retired at 4:15 o’clock in the afternoon, and, it being announced at 5:40 that the jury had not agreed and that the same was not likely to agree, by consent it was agreed that should the jury reach a verdict during the night the foreman should hold it until court reconvenes in the morning at 9 o’clock.

The case resulted in a mistrial. On the reconvening of court the next morning the jury was still out, and being called in, the foreman declared that there was no likelihood of an agreement being reached. The jury was therefore discharged, and the case will come up for trial again at the next term of the same court which opens the third Monday in May.

There has been, very naturally and properly, a deep and wide-spread interest in this case. It could not be otherwise, when it is considered what the principle is which is at stake, and in jeopardy of what, under its penal code and system, the State of Georgia has placed these men. The citizens of the city of Gainesville and the country surrounding have been in a measure aroused to the importance of the case. That the trial resulted as it did is a partial evidence of this. It is not to be supposed that the people of the State of Georgia will allow a case of religious persecution, worthy of the last century, to be carried on among them without, at least, informing themselves as to its merits and developing very decided opinions as to its propriety or impropriety. Those who

have charge of this prosecution and its continuance are placed in a very delicate position in the eyes of the people of their State and the country. There is on the statute books of Georgia a law which is a survival of the Middle Ages, and breathing the religious intolerance from which it sprung. Will they enforce this law? Will they gladly accept the odium which must attach to those who are party to the enforcement of such a relic of semi-barbarism? They certainly are in a difficult position. Those who bring complaint and indict and prosecute, are in a place of much greater difficulty than the men whom they bring to the bar of the court. There is no doubt or uncertainty or shadow of turning in their minds. They are right. The law of the State of Georgia is wrong. There will be no question in the minds of all men of sincere religious conviction throughout the world as to which stand in the nobler and worthier position, the victims of the iniquitous law, or those who put it into operation and execute its injustice. It is not these two men who are on trial in this matter, in reality; but this law of the State of Georgia and the people, as to whether they are willing that it should be enforced, or no.

A full statement of the arguments presented before the court will be given hereafter.

Gainesville, Ga., Feb. 25.