March 10, 1921

The preliminary hearing of pat Grady and E. E. Branscome, charged with the murder of Henry Lafferty at Willis Branch, will be held before Squire West March 15. The Prosecuting attorney has issued subpoenas for about a dozen witnesses upon behalf of the state. Osenton and Lee will represent the defendants. Grady and Branscome are now at liberty on $2,000 bond.

The date of the preliminary hearing was originally set for March 10 but at requests of for defense the trial has been postponed until Tuesday, March 15.

Considerable interest attaches to the preliminary hearing as it is hoped to throw some light on the disorders that have prevailed at the mining camp for many months.

A Huntington newspaper reporter and photographer who visited the camp last Thursday were made the targets for a half dozen shots fired by concealed snipers. The bullets did not come near and the firing was probably only intended as a warning that outsiders were not welcome in the neighborhood.

Nothing has been done toward repairing the damaged substation or placing the property in condition to resume operation. Mr. Rogers, Mt. Hope contractor, who was painting and repairing tenements when the last outbreak occurred expects to resume work soon and may furnish a signal for another attack.

Quite a number of the former employees of the Willis Branch Co. who were forced to flee have been writing to the management giving their addresses and requesting to be notified as soon as work is resumed.

Deputy Sheriff Craigo who has been stationed at the seat of war for the past two weeks, returned to Fayetteville Saturday. All was quiet Saturday night except an occasional pistol shot.

The Weirwood mine nearby is running full time with all miners at work every day.

The Huntington Herald-Dispatch sent a staff correspondent to the camp last week and in his account he says: Without going into causes of the trouble or attempting to attach responsibility for the shooting or destruction, it is safe to say that no town outside of war-ridden. France today presents such a picture of destruction and utter desolation as the little mining town of Willis Branch, nestling in a beautiful valley and surrounded by high mountains near the southern edge of Fayette county.

Incidentally there is at least one town in West Virginia where there is not a situation of a house shortage. The houses are there, ready to be occupied, but no one can be found who has the temerity to brave the dangers, the only inhabitants of the town being two black pigs, abandoned to the fate when the inhabitants fled before the rifles of mysterious snipers located in the hills.

Neighboring mining camps, where the mines are operated under the closed shop plan of the union, present teeming pictures of life and activity. Washings are hung out to the sun, smoke curls lazily from many chimneys and the shouts and laughter of children playing in the yards can be plainly heard.

Even the dogs, noisy sentinels of all mining camps, are gone. The only stir to the monotonous stillness is the daily passing of a train or an occasional shot, fired from the hillsides at any one who shows himself in the camp. Proof of this was furnished skeptical to newspapermen on a recent trip to the deserted camp when they were fired on as they were taking pictures of points of interest in the camp. Being experienced in the most approved methods of dodging German snipers bullets, they escaped.

The most interesting figure in the labor war and one of the outstanding features of the long struggle is the continued residence of "Uncle Jimmie" Davis, 73, a patriarch of Fayette county, who continues to reside with his white-headed wife in their old homestead near the scene of the strife despite repeated efforts, which have been made to assassinate him.

His home has been repeatedly riddled with bullets and snipers have fired at him on numerous occasions but the fearless old man seems to bear a charmed life, escaping death on many occasions by narrow inches.

Uncle Jimmie Davis is a fine figure of a man. About medium height, his body is rigidly erect and his frame still powerful and active despite his three score years and ten. Although refusing to fly before the cowardly attacks directed against himself and wife. Uncle Jimmie is a constant surprise on more intimate acquaintance. Mild mannered, strongly religious and disposed to be friendly and cordial in his relations toward everyone, the old patriarch developed a stubborn bravery when told he would have to leave his birthplace.

At one time owner of much of the coal lands now held by the Willis Branch Coal Company, "Uncle Jimmie" is estimated to be worth in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars derived from the sale of the lands. When it was suggested that he move out of Fayette county until after the trouble had subsided, the old mountaineer sternly replied, "I was born and raised here and I don't intend to be run away. If I am killed it means but a few less years in the world but you younger fellows who have many years before you had better clear out because I know these mountain people and they won't let up until they are given a good sound thrashing."

True to his instincts of hospitality seemingly bred in the old inhabitants of the mountains, never a stranger drops off a train at the deserted camp, even in these days when there is constant danger of a volley of shots from the hills, but that Uncle Jimmie is ready with courteous invitation to dinner and insistence that the stranger avail himself of the hospitality of the Davis home during their stay.

"The ole woman," Uncle Jimmie's companion for half a century, shares with her husband in all the dangers of their continued residence at Willis Branch, refusing to desert Uncle Jimmie even for a short time. The old countryman, still loves his wife and when he speaks of her it is in a tone of love and reverence.

The life of the state troopers at the deserted camp is a precarious one, as seen from a recent attempt which was made on the life of Private Quinn. A funeral was being held in he hillside cemetery below the mining camp and the crowd was waiting about the open grave awaiting the arrival of the funeral party when Private Quinn started down the railroad track on a tour of inspection.

Arriving near the cemetery, Quinn was forced to take cover in the lee of a railroad embankment by a volley of shots directed against him from the opposite hillside. He escaped unhurt, due to his speed in taking cover, and afterward remarked that he supposed "the funeral was the most successful in Fayette county as he certainly afforded much amusement for the mountaineers who laughed and jeered him for predicament."

Another trooper, D.W. Cox, had a narrow escape while sitting in a temporary orderly room fitted up in the company's office building. A bullet crashed through the wall, passing through a box of first aid equipment and passing over his shoulder, clipping a piece out of the toe of his army boot.

These and similar incidents have featured the stay of the state policemen since they undertook the guarding of the abandoned property and they assert that several attempts have been made to dynamite buildings in which they were staying.

The residence of Superintendent P.A. Grady, who is now living with his family at 703 Twelfth avenue, a handsome two story dwelling facing the railroad, has been greatly damage by the bullets which have literally riddle the house. The residence was erected at a cost of approximately $20,000, despite notice served on the company that they should not build it.

An anonymous communication informed the company that "any profits that could build a house like that belonged to the people and that the house must not be built." It is now unoccupied. Its doors standing open and those windows, not entirely shattered by bullets, unlatched to permit any one to enter.

January 13, 1921

Quick work was made in running down four men charged with the latest dynamiting outrage at the Willis Branch mine last week. It was 11 o'clock at night when the incline was blown up and Kentucky bloodhounds were at the scene at daylight and before 9 o'clock four men were under arrest. Their indictments followed the same day by the Grand Jury.

The bloodhounds followed tracks from the scene of the explosion to the homes of the Weirwood miners. The four men arrested were John Kidd, Clarence & Lee Donald, and Bob Ratliff. All were placed under bond by Squire West and in default Lee Donald and Bob Ratliff were sent to jail.

May 5, 1921

Convicted of conspiring and destroying property of the Willis Branch Coal company, John Kidd, Robert Ratliff, and Lee & Clarence Donald has been sentenced to serve seven (7) years each in the Moundsville penitentiary.

The trial started Tuesday last week and the verdict of the jury was returned Saturday morning. The four days were anxious and uneasy ones for all parties. Feeling was tense and strained almost to the breaking point. Quite a number of state troopers were on hand and Sheriff Conley and his deputies were extremely vigilant. Two incidents occurred resulting in a display of guns.

The convicted men were striking miners of the Willis Branch Coal company. They were tried under Red Men's statute for conspiring and dynamiting the incline of the mine property breaking a cable and doing damage of several thousand dollars. The dynamiting was done on the night of January 4th, last year. Nobody was hurt and there was no shooting in the neighborhood on the night of the explosion.

There were no eye witnesses to give testimony and the evidence was all circumstantial. The men, all closely related by marriage, resided near the scene of the explosion. Foot prints tallied with shoes worn by the defendants. Blood hounds followed the tracks to the homes of the men. Incriminating remarks were testified to. The defendants family testimony was all to the effect that the men were at home the entire night. None of the defendants testimony cast suspicion the perpetrators of the crime.

Mr. Osenton made the opening argument for the state and the following is his speech in full as taken down by Mr. Keller, the court reporter:

If the court please and gentlemen of the jury, it now becomes my privilege as well as my duty to present to you in the short time that has been allotted to me my theory of the state's case. It is unusual for me to appear on this side. I perhaps do not prosecute once in two hundred times. However, I shall do the best I can to aid you in arriving at a proper verdict in this case.

First, gentlemen of the jury, there are always, in a criminal case some questions that are important, material and necessary to be proven, that are either established or admitted, and that it is not necessary to discuss. You will have no trouble in saying, all twelve of you jurors, that on the night of the 4th of January, sometime between eleven and twelve o'clock. two explosions took place at Willis Branch . There will be no question in your mind but these explosions were not accidental: that the explosive was put there purposely and for the purpose of destroying property. The value of it does not make much difference. It runs anywhere, as I should imagine from this evidence, for 15 hundred to three thousand dollars, taking the tracks and ties and cable that were damaged there. These questions you will not have to discuss or consider, but of course they are necessary to be shown in the first instance.

The next question is, Who did it? That is the sole question that I see in this case. The state insists from this evidence, first, that among those men who did that job--and it couldn't have been done accidentally--there is no questions but what there is a conspiracy there, agreeing and acting together for an unlawful purpose. The Court has told you that when men agree and get together for an unlawful act, that is conspiracy, or if they get together for a lawful purpose and do it in an unlawful manner. We know that the men who did this job got the dynamite; we know thy got the fuse and caps, because that explosion was caused from a fuse and a cap. We know that four men did that job, gentlemen of the jury--there can't be any question about it--at least four men. How many men were behind the scenes there we are unable to tell, but we have the positive evidence here that there were four men at the scene of these two explosions.

Second, gentlemen of the jury, how do we know that? We know from this evidence there were four fresh tracks; two of them small tracks, made by people wearing the same sized shoes, leaving one explosion. We know that the other explosion shows tow fresh tracks leaving the explosion, one shoe larger than the other--one a tolerable large shoe, the other a medium sized shoe. We know gentlemen of the jury, from this evidence uncontradicted, that the two tracks leaving from the right hand side, circling around the hill, leading in that direction, were leading in the direction of the Kidd and Bob Ratliff house, eight hundred feet away at the foot of the hill. We know that the other two tracks leading around through the field, or pointing around were leading in the direction of the same place. We know, gentlemen of the jury, uncontradicted in this case, that they were fresh tracks.

Whose tracks were they, gentlemen of the jury?

This is a circumstantial case, based upon circumstantial evidence. His Honor tells you that you can convict upon circumstantial evidence alone and that in criminal cases it is sometimes the only mode of proof; and if you believe from such circumstantial evidence the guilt of the defendants it is just as much your duty to convict as it would be if the evidence were direct.

Whose tracks were they, gentlemen? Let's follow it up. This is a circumstantial case and every circumstantial case has a chain of circumstances and each link must be as strong as the chain itself. How many links are necessary in this case to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence to convict these defendants? Six, gentlemen of the jury, and I will call your attention to them. Fist, the explosion. That link has been completed. Second, means. By dynamite or monobel, exploded by fuse and a cap. Third, time. That has been established. Then the place, motive and opportunity for the men to commit this crime. I have called your attention to these tracks, and to the fact that Bob Ratliff and Lee Donald lived in a house and were living at the time within 800 feet of the scene of the explosion on the thing, and have been living there sometime. The evidence shows that the other two defendants, John Kidd and Clarence Donald lived in a house on the same side of the incline about 200 feet away. There is the opportunity, gentlemen of the jury, that is necessary in this case, for them to have gone there and pulled off this job.

Second, what was the motive for it, gentlemen? There had been a strike at Willis Branch, running over many months. The evidence shows that these men went on strike at some time or other. Some of them worked time or other. Some of them worked after the strike, but they went upon a strike. They were naturally sympathy, gentlemen of the jury, with the who were carrying on that strike, and against the Willis Branch Coal Company. It is not necessary to discuss that. If they hadn't been they wouldn't have stuck, gentlemen, they would have gone on to work.

I am not here to deny the right of a man to quit work whenever he wants to. That is his God-given right. They have a right to continue to strike, and to belong to any organization this is lawful and follows its work in a lawful way; he has a right to strike as long as he wants to, and to refuse to work, and he has a right to continue to strike as long as he violates no law of the State of West Virginia. The moment he does that he has no right to do so, and the law should be invoked to prosecute him and convict him if he violates the law. The man who employs a man to work also has the same right to employ whom he chooses, as long as he chooses, and he has the right to refuse to accede to the demands of an employe as long as he is within the laws of this state.

Gentlemen of the jury, there is the motive. Why gentlemen, the men were striking, and these defendants, being among them, were as anxious to win that strike as the men who employed them. The mine was running with a few men, gentlemen of the jury. If the mine could continue to work it left them no chance to win the strike, and somebody there resorted to violence by blowing up the cable or the track, in order to prevent by violence or unlawful means the mine from running while that strike was going on. There is the motive and there is not a man in that box who is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the motive for the two explosions that took place that night was to prevent the mine from running by unlawful means.

Now, let's go a step farther. Whose tracks were they, gentlemen? I say to this jury that the man who will take the bomb or the high explosive and blow up your property in the dead of night will shoot you from ambush, gentlemen of the jury, if necessary. The bomb or dynamite used to destroy property or life is the character of weapon that the assassin uses. The man who will do that will shoot you in the back at night, or shoot you from the woods in the day time while you are exposed and he is hidden. It is the act of the coward, gentlemen of the jury, and the man who does it should be in the penitentiary of this state, and fir a good, long time I don't care whether he is an operator or a miner, gentlemen of the jury. Now, one moment: I said to you gentlemen, "time and place," "motive and opportunity." What is the next link in this chain, gentlemen? Who did it?

Now, gentlemen, let's see; The man who goes out in the woods to shoot his victim, to lie in wait and kill him--what would be his defense, gentlemen, if apprehended? An alibi! "I wasn't there." The man who goes out with a bomb to blow up property, what is his defense? You know--an alibi! "I wasn't there." What is the defense of the man who goes and breaks into your house in the dead of night to commit larceny? An alibi! gentlemen of the jury. And ninety-nine times out of a hundred he plans his alibi before he goes, and gets ready for it. He knows the only opportunity to convict him for such an offense if he is not seen by someone, is to prove he was there by circumstantial evidence. Gentlemen, witnesses may lie. Circumstances never lie. Witnesses may, but circumstances never lie.

Whose tracks were they, gentlemen of the jury, let me ask you. I say that three of the men whose tracks have been established in this case are sitting looking the jury in the face now. Who are they? John Kidd, Bob Ratliff and Lee Donald, gentlemen of the jury. Why do I say it? Because it has been shown by the circumstances in this case that they had the motives, gentlemen of the jury, to stop that mine from running by violence. The were within 800 feet of the scene, or lived rather, within 800 feet of the scene of this explosion. Each and every one of them knows how to use dynamite with fuse to burn and cause an explosion. But we have proven n this case that it was about a minute. One or two of these defendants say it would take a minute or more, maybe two minutes. The men who applied the fuse to the dynamite on that occasion knew, and there isn't a one of them that hasn't had eight years experience in exploding dynamite. Now, they planted their bomb, they cut their fuse, they knew how long it would take. The lighted that fuse and give it sufficient length to burn in order for them to get to there homes 800 feet away, gentlemen of the jury. But like the assassin--he will drop a key, he will drop a handkerchief, or leave a track, gentlemen of the jury, by which you can run him down. If he didn't do that no one would be convicted.

Let's see: they left four tracks behind. Clarence Donald and John Kidd living at that time 800 feet away in the same house; no one living on that side of the track k, and possibly two hundred yards from any house on that side of the track; the other two living on the other side. Now, let's see track they were. There were two small tracks of men wearing small-sized shoes about a six, leaving from one explosion, running, as it were away from the place where they had lighted the torch of the fuse that was soon to blow up three thousand dollars worth of property, stop the mine and aid in winning that strike, gentlemen of the jury, by unlawful means. Both those track, the evidence shows, were the same size, and made by the same sized shoe, both leaving together. Who were they, gentlemen of the jury, who had the same sized shoes? Lee and Clarence Donald. Isn't it the most natural thing in the world, that going there to blow up that property, those two brothers would go there together, gentlemen of the jury. You might have said to me, "There are plenty of shoes in Willis Branch, No. 6," bit isn't it a little strange, gentlemen of the jury, that here are two brothers with the same sized shoes and the same sized tracks leading from one to those explosions? You have no doubt but what that the men who made those two tracks put off that explosion, have you? Any reasonable doubt in your mind. But we don't stop there. They go down and get hold of Lee Donald. He denies it is true, but it is proven here by three witnesses for the state. The go down there and get him. He had been loafing and in idleness, and idleness, gentlemen of the jury produces crimes. show me the man who lives day in and day out fed by somebody else, reading Wild West stories, and I will show you a man who will eventually commit crime, and you know it as well as I do. Lee Donald is arrested. The track is identical with the shoe. They measure the heel, lengthwise and crosswise; they measure the sole; the measure the length and they tell you that is absolutely the same, gentlemen of the jury. They don't stop there. They take the shoe of Lee Donald and fit it in the tracks. It is a full complete track, and it is absolutely. Gentlemen, talk about a circumstance that you can't be mistaken about. Is there any doubt in your mind that the shoe that made the track was the shoe taken from Lee Donald and fitted in track, gentlemen of the jury? There is one of the four men.

Now, what next do we find? What did you do with shoes young man? One of the first things a criminal does or thinks of is to hide any evidence of his crime. Now, what does he do with the shoes? The are measured; they fit the measurement of the track. he knows it gentlemen of the jury, and although he admitted he had only had those shoes three months about, before the time of this explosion, when I got after him and said, "Where are the shoe?" I wondered why he didn't bring them here, was my thought. "I threw them away." Just like the assassin is sometimes trapped when he shoots his victim in the back, b y throwing away the weapon and they get the weapon and trace it down to where it came from. Why did he throw away the shoe? Why didn't he bring then here, gentlemen of the jury, and let the jury see them? I'll will tell you why! Because he knew they fit that track; he knew the measurements of that track and the shoes were the same. He knew it fixed, with any jury the fact that those shoes made the track at the scene of the explosion, gentlemen of the jury.

What do we do next? We have never been able to measure, except that they were the same size, the shoes that made the other small track; but here is his brother with the same sized shoe, the same sized foot, the same number of shoe, and he had those shoes about three months, and he has thrown them away. He thinks they are at home somewhere. Why didn't he bring them here? My conscience, gentlemen of the jury! If I was charged with crime and my toot had been measured and my shoe fit in the track from an explosion,or where an explosion had occurred, I would want those shoes here unless they were against me. The presumption is that the reason he did not bring the shoes, was because they would carry out and corroborate the witnesses who measured them in that track. He didn't bring them here, did he? Three lawyers, one a former judge of this circuit court, two ex- prosecuting attorneys, who knew the strength of it, and they didn't bring them. Why? Tom Reed and Summerfield and Judge Bennett knew they wanted those shoes lost, and they were lost, gentlemen of the jury. Just like the criminal hiding any fact or circumstance that might cover up the crime. That is shoe No. 2.

Let's take the next one, a medium sized shoe, large than those of the other side. Who had a shoe of that kind? They took this from Bob Ratliff, who had worked sometime before the strike, worked after the strike and then struck, gentlemen of the jury, or quit--he had a right to if he wanted to--I don't know why he did know why he did, be he worked before and after-at any rate, let's see about him. They took him to the scene, gentlemen, of the explosion. They asked him to take off his shoe. He did. He admitted he was wearing those shoes the night before. They took his shoe off and measured the track in his presence and in the presence of three others, the hell, both ways, the bottom and length. The tell you it was identical. He doesn't deny it. They didn't stop at that, gentlemen of the jury, they fitted the shoe into the track and it fit absolutely. Is there any question about that? He tried to say the shoe skidded in one place, and slipped a little, but you heard the witnesses, and those witnesses for the state, when asked, "when you fitted shoes up in those tracks and made the measurements and called his attention to kit, what did he say?" Not a ward! Gentlemen, they said he never spoke. That is a circumstance you will consider. he cones on and he says that he called their attention to this, that and the other, but the fact remains that the shoe he had on, that he had worn the day before, fit the tracks; its measurements were the same as the tracks. And where are Bob Ratliff's shoes? What did he do with then? He had only had them two or three months. Why, I wear a pair of shores a year. Sometimes they look like they will go two years. But here is a man out of work that gets rid of a pair of shoes that he has only had two or three months, that had been measured while he was present, that fit the tracks of a midnight assassin, or the men who would assassinate somebody. Gentlemen of the jury, why? Why didn't he bring them here? "Why here is a little patch on this heel, or a certain nail in that one that doesn't correspond?" If there had been anything, gentlemen of the jury, that would have indicated that they were not the shoe, anything on the bottoms of them to have contradicted, the two ex-prosecuting attorneys and the ex- judge would had them here! The presumption is the shoes would not have helped them. Shoe No. 2, gentlemen of the jury, gone, the Lee Donald shoe and the shoe of Bob Ratliff.

Then what else do we find? Shoes No. 3, gentlemen, the large shoe. The witnesses have told you that they discovered from the full track that it appeared they were new shoes, hadn't been worn much. Is that the evidence? They went down to the home where he stayed that night--part of the night anyhow--and asked his mother for one of his shoes. He had gone to the mines, so they say. Nobody here said they went to the mine that day except them; I don't know whether they did or not, or whether they were lying somewhere in the hills while the bloodhounds were after them. It was easy enough, if they were working that day, for them to have brought somebody here who saw them come away from the mine, that were said to be dead sure, to go to work or somewhere else. But what about that shoe? His mother said it was a new shoe, hadn't been worn much; a Walk-Over shoe, I believe he said. It was the largest shoe in the bunch. They took the track on that side where the medium sized shoe--where Bob Ratliff made the print--that is the fact about it gentlemen and they measured that track, both lengthwise, and broadside and every other way, gentlemen. Then they measured the shoe and it was identical, gentlemen of the jury. They, then, not satisfied, took your shoe, John, and it fitted into the track!

Gentlemen, in addition to that after fitting the shoe into the track--and where is your shoe, John? Not here? Worn them out! Right new shoe! Didn't wear it long afterwards. Is it true gentlemen of the jury? He didn't bring it here! Let me ask you something: are you satisfied in your minds beyond a reasonable doubt and can it be otherwise with that opportunity, that motive, that link in the chain is not as strong as any link in it, that--who? -- Bob Ratliff, John Kidd and Lee Donald were there? Because we have their tracks.

Now, gentlemen, there are three out of four. One left. If John Kidd was there--and his footprints were leaving--it, gentlemen, as the man who would go up in the night time to rob your building or to assassinate you always leaves something behind that you can catch him by---if he was there be came from the same house that Clarence Donald came from and Clarence Donald's foot is there same size as his brother's foot, and that is his track; showing that here were the four men who had gone up there to blow up the property. They did blow it up.

Gentlemen, that is not all. Go a step farther. Why Clarence Donald or Lee Donald walked over to the power house next morning, looked up on the hill where the witnesses say you couldn't see the explosion, and says, "Is that where the explosion occurred?" I wonder how he knew if he wasn't there? And then Judge Bennett helped us out by bringing on the stand the other one and saying, "You knew there were guards up there, didn't you?" "Yes sir." "Whereabouts?" "At the knuckle and at the powerhouse." 2800 or 300 feet apart! What happened? Why, gentlemen, he said to him, "You knew they didn't have any at the point where this explosion occurred, didn't you?" "Yes sir, we knew that." Then if they knew there were guards at either end and none in the center, isn't that the place a fellow would go to blow her up? and that is shown by Judge Bennett's own questions. He called the witness back.

But that isn't all. Let's see something else. Gentlemen, what else do we find? We find that while working there John Kidd said--what? Pointed out this place where the cable would strike the ground. We all know that dynamite has more force downward than upward. "There is the place." in other words, "where you can look for it to happen. If they every blow up this cable, there is where it will blow up."

Oh, they say Lum Maynor can't be believed; he can't tell the truth--and they bring a fellow like Jesse Thurmond to prove a man's character by I would leave it stand as good for all time to come, and so would you. But they bring on some other people who are mad at him because he couldn't pay his debts! My God! Many of us have been in the fix, and if we can't be believed because we get hard up and can't pay our debs it is a bad community, because there are a good many of us. But, gentlemen of the jury, suppose you don't"t believe him. He is not on trial. You don't have to stop there. A little 14-year old boy and I expect Jesse Thurmond would have sworn his reputation was bad although he had been living at Norfolk for three years. and the boy was hardly in his swaddling clothes then. That boy tells you that he heard the defendant say it, gentlemen of the jury and he was present and he is not impeached.

Gentlemen of the jury, that isn't all. What other circumstances have we? We have, gentlemen, in this case, a blacksmith and his bother, the first explosion woke then up. On of them went out on the porch and the other followed in a short time, and what did they see? At 150 yards upon the hill they saw three men coming from the back part--coming down from the direction where the explosion occurred. Three men, gentlemen of the jury. They wouldn't have been out there walking their night clothes or their shirt-tails, would they? And the other one saw them, and they went into the Kidd yard. One of the walked up on the porch and he heard somebody say, "hey, Buddie, where did that happen?" I'll tell you who they were. John Kidd and two of the others. The other had gone to the house.

Another circumstance. Their tracks, gentlemen of the jury, their opportunity, their knowledge of the explosions, their motive, gentlemen of the jury, and in addition to that, three men seen within a few minutes after the explosion in the yard of the home where two of them lived, and within a hundred feet of where the other ones lived, gentlemen of the jury. That is the evidence in this case.

"Oh well,' they may say, "you had bloodhounds." Gentlemen, you can take the bloodhounds out of this case, and yet there are their own tracks. There are four of them. Three of their tracks have been proven and the other shoe t was the same size, gentlemen of the jury. But gentlemen of the jury, the bloodhounds are merely a circumstance to be considered along with the others. I don't know how many of you have owned dogs. I have had a dog all my life and sometimes a dozen when I was a boy. You have had dogs. They were not bloodhounds trained for that purpose but they could track you anywhere, even an ordinary cur, or a pointer or a setter. But here are the bloodhounds. The are trained. They went around and they went into the Kidd house; the smelled of the bed and they smelled of the pair of shoes. And whose shoes were they? They were Clarence Donald's shoes, because he said so.

Let me say that I want no juror to convict any man under the evidence unless he believes that he is guilty. The state has no right to a conviction unless the evidenced warrants that conviction. I am not here to play upon you prejudices; but I can say to you frankly, if you can't convict men in this sort of a case, you can't convict a burglar who goes in the night-time and robs yours house; you will never be able to convict men who go out in the woods and assassinate people. In is not so much o punish them. That is not the theory of the law. The theory of the law is that there is very little reformation for the man who has reached the point that he will go out in the night time and blow up your property or assassinate you. The theory of the law is not only to punish him but put him where he can't do it again, and as a warning to others who try to or do commit similar offenses. Turn them loose to go back to Willis Branch with the fuse and the dynamite, with the chip on their shoulders, and to say as they as they said about the store-- did they have any feeling? The mother said that either Lee Donald or Bob here said, "I think it is the store and they are blowing it to hell" i wonder if the wish was the mother of the thought? In other words, gentlemen, will you send them with their fifty feet of fuse and their monobel, to say to them, "To hell with the courts and the juries. We will destroy property. They can't convict us, because they proved our tracks, they fitted then, we were going in that direction, three men seen there, bloodhounds trailed us there twelve hours afterwards, and the jury said, "Go home, we will not convict you."

Gentlemen, in conclusion let me say--I must go to the office and go to work; I have some other cases--I have said all I have time to say in this case, but I ask you, in the name of justice, in the name of other boys who may be persuaded and I believe these were; at least that those little ones were--John Kidd--Bob are to blame for it more than they are--I say to you this: for the sake of law and order, in the interest of the peace and quietude of this county, stop the dynamiters, and if this case is one that has been proven have the courage to stand up and say so, that the juries of Fayette county will put heir feet down on the man who has gone so far in that direction that he will blow up property. The next t step is to take human life.

Do your duty, gentlemen. Do what you believe this evidence warrants you in doing; nothing more---nothing less.

George Love, prosecuting attorney, had the assistance in the trial of the case of C.W. Osenton and Magee McClung. The defendants were represented by W.R. Bennett, C.R. Summerfield and Thomas Read.

The case went to the Jury 2 o'clock Friday evening. Before supper the jury asked the court for instructions relative to the punishment provided by law. R.H. Miller, foreman stated to the court that here was a division of the jury 7 to 5. After short deliberation Saturday morning the jury returned a verdict finding all four of the defendants guilty as charged and asking the court impose the lowest sentence possible. This is fixed by the law as two years

After the trial it was ascertained that only one juror voted for acquittal at first and the division of 7 to 5 was on the recommendation for the minimum sentence.

The members of the jury were as follows: R.H. Miller, W.M. Goode, R.J. Hawyer, O.L. Kincaid, B.B. Legg, Cecial Martindale, Peter Osborn, W.L. Ramsey, C.B. tuggle, E.H. Wiseman and W.H. Willard.

Attorneys for defendants made the usual motions and will endeavor to get a reversal of the verdict in the supreme court.

The four convicted men were arraigned before Judge Eary for sentence Tuesday morning. The court reviewed the circumstances of the case in detail.

The evidence of their guilt was not conclusive; the manner in which the crime was committed not affording direct evidence of the character usually produced.

If later evidence should prove the innocence of the convicted men the court told them it would gladly exert its power to give them their freedom. As the case now stood the jury had declared them guilty and it was the court's duty to impose sentence. It was not the duty of the jury to fix punishment; this was a responsibility of the court alone under an oath as binding as that of a juror. When asked if they had anything to say, defendants all protested their innocence or any knowledge of the affair. Judge Eary then imposed sentence of 7 years on each of them and they were remanded to jail where they will be held awaiting removal to Moundsville.

The convicted men have another indictment against them of a similar character. With half a dozen others they are charged with conspiring to destroy the store and superintendent's house on the night when Henry Lafferty was killed.

Wednesday evening after court had adjourned Supt. Grady prosecuting witness and Charles Brown had some words when they met on the street. It is alleged Grady displayed a pistol and the Mayor of the town has issued a warrant for his arrest.

Friday evening after Mr. Osenton had made his speech to the jury he was accosted on the street in a threatening manner Jesse Thurmond, one of the defendant's witnesses, to whom he had referred in his argument (Oh, they say Lum Maynor can't be believe; he can't tell the truth and they bring a fellow like Jesse Thurmond in here! If I couldn't think of anybody better than Jesse Thurmond to prove a man's character I would leave it stand as good for all time to come, and so would you.) The attorney drew his pistol to defend

-----*****-----

June 16, 1921

Rumors of contemplated attempts by friends of the convicted Willis Branch dynamiters to liberate them from jail by force has caused sheriff Conley to place a guard on watch at night.

September 8, 1921

The Supreme court convened in regular session this week and action is expected to be taken soon on the four Willis Branch convicted dynamiters being held in jail here.