Pwt 04 2017 the judge, the prosecutor and the onion picker

WEEKLY TRANSMISSION N°04

THE JUDGE, THE PROSECUTOR AND THE ONION PICKER

N°3, The Onion Pickers Leader, detail

FAMILY OF MAN :

THURSDAY 26 JANUARY 2017

contents: The Judge: Atorney for Dr and Mrs Guilfoyle, the Murder of Claire Gaudet The Prosecutor: The Murder of Young Billionaire Zachary Smith Reynolds The Onion Picker: Leader of the Hardin County Onion Pickers Strike, 1934 WWW.PLANTUREUX.FR

1 9 13

N°1, the Judge, detail

“The past is constructed from the present, which selects what in its eyes is historical, that is to say precisely what has developed in the past to produce the present.” (Edgar Morin) “Le passé est construit à partir du présent, qui sélectionne ce qui, à ses yeux, est historique, c'està-dire précisément ce qui, dans le passé, s'est développé pour produire le présent”. (Edgar Morin) The e-bulletin presents articles as well as selections of books, albums, photographs and documents as they have been handed down to the actual owners by their creators and by amateurs from past generations.

The physical descriptions, attributions, origins, and printing dates of the books and photographs have been carefully ascertained by collations and through close analysis of comparable works.

When items are for sale, the prices are in Euros, and Paypal is accepted.

The 3 vintage portraits are proposed as a collection for four hundred euros.

N°04-2017 : THE JUDGE, THE PROSECUTOR AND THE ONION PICKER Previous related transmissions can be found at www.plantureux.fr

Weekly Transmission 04

1

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

FBI. Judge Samuel Rosenthal, Attorney for Dr and Mrs Guilfoyle, Hartford, Feb. 1928.

Vintage silver print, circa 245x195 mm, captions and date stamp verso. (See case history).

Weekly Transmission 04

2

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

Doctor Who Kills : The Difficult Defense of Dr Guilfoye in Claire Gaudet’s Murder “The indictment charged the accused with murder in the first degree in having shot to death one Claire K. Gaudet, at Hartford, on the evening of January 18th, 1928. Having pleaded not guilty, and so elected, he was tried by the court, composed of three judges, and was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree. Thereupon, he filed a motion to set aside the verdict or judgment, which was denied. The appeal is in substantial accordance with the procedure for appeals in criminal cases tried to the court...

The defendant Guilfoyle was a veterinary employed by the United States government as an inspector engaged in eradication of bovine tuberculosis in Connecticut and, with his wife, occupied an apartment on the second floor of a house at 691 Maple Avenue, in Hartford. The apartment consisted of four rooms — kitchen, living room, bathroom and bedroom... Directly across the hall from the door leading to the Guilfoyle apartment is an apartment occupied by one Johnston, the door leading to it being at the head of the stairs. The outside front doors of the house on the first floor open into a vestibule, and a door opens inwardly from the vestibule to the hallway, from which front and rear stairways lead to the second and third floors.

Claire K. Gaudet was the wife of Maximin J. Gaudet, to whom she was married December 27th, 1921. At the time of her death she was thirty-four years old. After their marriage they lived in New Haven and a daughter was born to them in November, 1922. In 1925 they moved to Hartford where they lived until they returned to New Haven May 1st, 1927. In 1919 Mrs. Gaudet met Mrs. Way, who at that time was also unmarried, but in 1923 married Algernon S. Way. In July or August, 1926, the Ways were introduced to the Guilfoyles by a mutual friend, and a frequent interchange of visits followed. In September, 1926, the Ways introduced the Gaudets to the Guilfoyles. From the date of this introduction the three families were very friendly, frequently exchanging visits with each other, having parties together, and going on trips together. These intimate relations continued up to New Years, 1927, when, while they were all at a party at the Ways' home, Mr. Way struck Mrs. Way in the face. This was resented by Dr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Gaudet and from that time on the Gaudets and the Guilfoyles saw very little of the Ways but sought to drop them and avoid them socially. The intimacies of the Gaudets and the Guilfoyles continued until January 1928, and visits were frequently exchanged.

Three days before the murder, on Sunday, January 15th, 1928, the accused and his wife drove to New Haven, went to the apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Gaudet, stayed to dinner and through the evening until about 11 p.m., and, in accordance with a previous arrangement, brought Mrs. Gaudet and her small daughter back to Hartford.

Weekly Transmission 04

3

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

One purpose of Mrs. Gaudet's trip to Hartford was to testify in a lawsuit pending in the Superior Court and assigned for trial Tuesday, January 17th. On the following Wednesday January 18th morning Mr. Gaudet telephoned his wife and asked her to come home and she promised that she would do so the following morning. On the same Wednesday morning, the day of the homicide, the accused went to Bridgeport and spent the day there inspecting cattle.

He wore a brown overcoat. Upon his return to Hartford he parked his automobile in front of the apartment house and it remained there until after the homicide. During the day he appeared to be cheerful and normal, and free from nervousness or depression.

Mrs. Gaudet and her little daughter had supper that evening with the accused & his wife in the Guilfoyle apartment. At about seven-twenty-five o'clock, as Mr. & Mrs. Way were passing the apartment house they saw Dr. Guilfoyle's car parked in the street, also observed a light in the accused's rooms, and then decided to stop in to say "hello." This was the first occasion on which the Ways, the Guilfoyles and Mrs. Gaudet had been together since one year..

After a general conversation, Mr. Way went into the living room with the Gaudet child, and Mrs. Gaudet, Mrs. Way and Mrs. Guilfoyle washed the supper dishes. The accused served beer to every one present except the little girl, and, in addition, gave Mr. Way a glass of whiskey. The only people in the Guilfoyle apartment that evening prior to the homicide were Mr. and Mrs. Guilfoyle, Mrs. Gaudet and her daughter and Mr. and Mrs. Way. Shortly after eight o'clock, the little girl complained of being tired, Mrs. Gaudet put a coat on her and prepared to leave. The accused thereupon went to the clothes closet in the bedroom where the brown overcoat then was and shortly afterward came out again wearing a gray overcoat which had been hanging in the same closet, and stood in the entry way between the bedroom and the kitchen with both hands in his overcoat pockets.

After the little girl was made ready, Mrs. Way assisted both Mrs. Gaudet and Mrs. Guilfoyle in putting on their outer wraps. Meanwhile the daughter started out of the door and down the stairs and Mr. Way followed her down and out onto the sidewalk to protect her from the dangers of the street. For many years Way's left leg had been stiff and lame and his right arm was amputated near the shoulder when he was a small boy.

After the Gaudet child and Way had gone down the stairs, the accused stepped out into the hall and waited for Mrs. Gaudet and together they went down the stairs, Mrs. Gaudet in the lead and the accused following. As Mrs. Gaudet stepped from the lower step to the hallway she was shot in the back with a twenty-five caliber automatic Colt pistol purchased by the accused in Philadelphia in 1924.

Weekly Transmission 04

4

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

The bullet entered a little below the right shoulder blade and pursued a downward and forward course bearing slightly to the left. The course of the bullet showed that the fatal shot was fired from a pistol held in the right0 hand and from behind and above.

Mrs. Gaudet screamed and made her way to the vestibule door and later slumped down upon the floor of the vestibule. The accused continued across the hall to the south wall near the vestibule door and when first seen after the shooting was standing there, about three feet from Mrs. Gaudet. After the shooting of Mrs. Gaudet, the accused turned the weapon upon himself and fired two shots. One shot took effect in the right side of his head, passed through the muscular part of the head, cutting the optic nerve and emerged at the bridge of the nose. The bullet pursued practically a horizontal course from the point of entrance to the point of exit.

The other bullet embedded itself in the north wall about six feet one inch above the floor and about four feet easterly from the bottom of the front stairs.

After the accused and Mrs. Gaudet had left the apartment, Mrs. Way and Mrs. Guilfoyle started to turn out the lights in the kitchen and bedroom. Mrs. Way went to the bedroom to turn the switch which operated the light in that room and Mrs. Guilfoyle went to the kitchen light which operated from an overhead string pull. As Mrs. Way was about to place her hand upon the switch in the bedroom she heard the first shot, and turned and followed Mrs. Guilfoyle into the hall and down the stairs. Mrs. Guilfoyle was the first person to reach the accused after the shooting. When Mrs. Way arrived he was close to the south wall near the vestibule with his right hand over his right eye. On the floor at his feet was his pistol. Mrs. Guilfoyle at once assisted the accused upstairs and into the bathroom of his apartment where she washed the wound and applied cold compresses to the right side of his head. Way and the little girl were on the sidewalk about five or six paces from the outside vestibule when the shots were fired. Upon hearing the first shot, Way started back and before he got to the door he heard two more shots. He found Mrs. Gaudet leaning against or holding on to one side of the inner vestibule door. At that time she said, "I am shot in the back." Way immediately inquired for a telephone and went to an adjoining store and telephoned the police.

After the accused had been taken to the bathroom and while his wound was being bathed by his wife, he was told that the doctor and the police were coming. He at once arose and attempted to leave the bathroom, at the same time remarking, "They are not going to get me."

In the meantime Mrs. Gaudet had been brought to the bedroom in the Guilfoyle apartment.

The accused and his wife were able to converse in German and while in the bathroom and before his removal to the hospital they talked to each other in that language.

Weekly Transmission 04

5

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

After the arrival of the police and before the accused was taken to the hospital, Mrs. Way asked Mrs. Guilfoyle for the pistol. Thereupon Mrs. Guilfoyle took the pistol from her pocket and handed it to Mrs. Way, who turned it over to a police officer.

While at the hospital the accused was interviewed on different occasions by several police officers or detectives. At all interviews he denied he had done the shooting and stated that he did not know who did it.

Mrs. Gaudet was removed to the hospital and died about thirty-eight hours later, without giving her husband any information as to the circumstances attending the homicide.

After the police arrived, the brown overcoat, which the accused had worn to Bridgeport, was found in the closet in the bedroom and in the pocket was found a small homemade leather holster in which the accused was accustomed to carry his pistol. The accused admitted that he had the pistol and the holster with him at Bridgeport, but said that he supposed he had left it in his automobile when he arrived home.

At the time Mrs. Gaudet was shot, there was no other person in the hall or upon the stairway except the accused and Mrs. Gaudet. The shot which killed her could not have been selfinflicted.

The bullet which wounded the accused entered his head just above the zygoma or malar bone and emerged at the bridge of the nose. The course of the bullet from the wound of entrance to the wound of exit was at an angle of about forty-five degrees to the medial line of the head. The wound was clean cut and there was no tearing or burning of the skin. There were small superficial marks of powder around the wound which disappeared in a few days.

The discharge of a pistol in contact with the flesh of a human being would probably result in a tearing and burning of the skin. Such a tearing and burning might not appear if the pistol were more than three inches away; powder marks might remain for a short time if the pistol were five, six or even eight inches away. Such marks can often be brushed off or washed off if they do not penetrate the skin.

Mr. Gaudet, in the discharge of his duties, was absent from home for a period of about three months during the fall of 1926. On November 27th, 1926, the accused purchased a wrist watch which was given to Mrs. Gaudet as a present from the accused and was upon her wrist at the time of the homicide. Her husband did not know of this gift until after her death. Mrs. Gaudet worked in a department store in Hartford from March 29th, 1926, until March 19th, 1927, and during the months of January and February, 1927, the accused, in a Ford coupe, brought her to her work on at least three or four occasions.

Weekly Transmission 04

6

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

From March 15th, 1927, which was about six weeks before the Gaudets moved to New Haven, the accused rented a lock box in the New Haven post office, for which three keys were issued.

Two of these keys were found in the pocket of the coat which Mrs. Gaudet was wearing when shot, and in January, 1928, she complained to a post-office clerk that the box was closed and it was found that it had been locked by mistake. The third key was found in the possession of the accused. The accused also had a lock box at the Wethersfield post office.

During visits between the Guilfoyles & the Gaudets the accused and Mrs. Gaudet sometimes discussed travel, of which both were fond.

The court concluded that the death of Mrs. Gaudet was caused by a bullet fired by the accused, with malice aforethought and with a specific intent to kill.

Appeal. Examinations The finding that the fatal shot was fired from a pistol held in the right hand is an admissible inference from physical facts and evidence open to acceptance by the trial court. Its only apparent materiality is as tending to eliminate Way as a possible perpetrator, a process already quite thoroughly accomplished by other facts found.

That at the time Mrs. Gaudet was shot there was no other person in the hall or upon the stairway except the accused has sufficient support from evidence and inferences from the sequence of events to absolve it from elimination as found without evidence. The conclusion of the trial judges that the shooting was done with malice aforethought and with a specific intent to kill is a legally inescapable consequence, if, as the court found, the accused killed Mrs. Gaudet, without any extenuation suggested by the evidence, with a deadly weapon.

The appellant claims that "the judgment involved the conclusion that there existed no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, whereas from all the evidence the existence of a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt was a logical and necessary conclusion.�...

We have given thorough consideration to all of the evidence in order to determine whether it fails to measure up to the requirements of a judgment of guilty in any of the several respects contended by the appellant.

One of these is that no motive on the part of the accused for shooting Mrs. Gaudet was shown.

"Proof of motive is never necessary to support a conclusion of guilt otherwise sufficiently established, however significant its presence or absence, or its sufficiency, may be as bearing upon the issue of guilt or innocence."State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 632, 141 A. 660;State v. Rathburn, 74 Conn. 524, 529, 51 A. 540.

Weekly Transmission 04

7

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

It is also claimed that a motive existed on the part of other persons who had opportunity to commit the crime, but we find nothing in the evidence to establish any situation which might reasonably be regarded as constituting an incentive to murder Mrs. Gaudet, on the part of the wife of the accused, or Mr. or Mrs. Way, to whom, the argument discloses, this claim has reference. The element of opportunity must also be taken into account in this connection.

The claim is made that "it is quite as probable that the crime was committed by other persons present as by the accused."

As we have seen, the court found that, at the time Mrs. Gaudet was shot, there was no other person in the hall* or upon the stairway except the accused.

The evidence as to the situation and movements of the various persons abundantly justifies the court in so holding, indeed it is difficult to see how it reasonably could have found otherwise.

Mrs. Way's testimony, which the court could and it appears did credit, placed both herself and Mrs. Guilfoyle elsewhere, at the time the shots were fired.

Mrs. Johnston, the tenant of the adjoining apartment, testified that after she heard the shots she walked across the room, about fifteen steps, opened the hall door, and saw Mrs. Guilfoyle walking downstairs and then only about half way down, and another woman (Mrs. Way) back of her.

No evidence places Way in the hallway at the time or affords any reasonable intimation to that effect, while his own testimony, that he was outside on the walk, might be, and apparently was, accepted. That the pistol used was the property of the accused is not questioned.

A contention strenuously pressed by the appellant is as to the existence of a reasonable doubt that the wound sustained by the accused was self-inflicted.

The conflict of evidence upon this point centered principally upon the appearance of the wound, as bearing upon the question whether the shot was fired from a distance sufficiently near the point of entrance so that it could have been held and fired by the accused.

The evidence was uncontradicted that immediately after the shooting Mrs. Guilfoyle bathed the wound with a Turkish towel and applied wet cloths to it.

After Guilfoyle arrived at the hospital Dr. Sunderland further cleaned the wound and applied a boric ointment dressing. He testified that the wound was clean, with no tearing, burning, or tattooing of the flesh and no powder marks that he saw.

Weekly Transmission 04

8

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

On the other hand, Dr. Heyman, who renewed the dressing the next morning, testified that then while there was no branding of the skin or burning, he observed what he thought were small superficial grains of powder, around the woundwhich disappeared the third day.

We do not deem it necessary to prolong discussion of the evidence and facts, beyond what has already been said, to demonstrate that a like determination must be reached as to the further ultimate and decisive conclusion that the shot which killed Mrs. Gaudet was fired by the accused.”

(Supreme Court of Connecticut, 145 A. 761, 17 April 1929, Judge Hinman).

* “...About an hour and a half after the shooting, Maximin Gaudet arrived at the Guilfoyles.

His story was simply that he had taken the train to Hartford with the intention of meeting his wife at the dinner party. He would then accompany her back to New Haven.

As his train was late in arriving, he decided to eat in a restaurant and pick up Claire and Patricia later.

Maximin Gaudet didn't seem surprised at his wife's predicament. He told police that considering his wife's lifestyle, it was to be expected.

The investigation continued into the wee hours of the morning.

A search was conducted for the murder weapon in the hall and outside the building, but nothing turned up. Finally, the Guilfoyle's apartment was searched with more positive results.

A pearl handled .38 calibre revolver was found in a chest of drawers in the living room. Three cartridges had been fired, and eventually this revolver proved to be the attacker's weapon.

When questioned Guilfoyle verified that the gun was his.”

(See Max Haines, Doctors who kill, 1993, page 104).

Weekly Transmission 04

9

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

Carlisle Higgins, Prosecutor in the Murder of Zachary Smith, Forsyth County, NC, Aug. 1932.

Vintage silver print, circa 245x195 mm, captions and date stamp verso. (See page )

Weekly Transmission 04

10

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

The Murder of Zachary Smith Reynolds (born 1911, murdered July 6, 1932) Zachary Smith Reynolds was an American amateur aviator and younger son of R. J. Reynolds.

The Zachary Smith Reynolds story was the basis for two movies, Reckless, starring Jean Harlow, and the popular 1950s classic, Written on the Wind. The latter was loosely based on a novel by Robert Wilder. In addition, the 1933 film Sing, Sinner, Sing was loosely based upon the allegations surrounding Reynolds' death. Reynolds (also known as Z. Smith Reynolds, or just Smith) was the youngest child of R. J. Reynolds, founder of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Mary Katharine "Katharine" Smith Reynolds.

Father R.J. Reynolds died in 1918 of pancreatic cancer, and mother Katherine Reynolds died in 1924. The Reynolds children then went to live with their uncle, William Neal Reynolds, and his wife Kate, who did not have children of their own. Zachary quit school as a teenager to focus on flying planes, for which he had a talent. He was scheduled to receive $17 million from his father's estate at the age of 21 (1932).

Reynolds married Anne Cannon in York, South Carolina at midnight on 16 November 1929 soon after he turned 18. She was the daughter of Joseph Franklin Cannon of the Cannon Mills fortune. Due to Reynolds's affair with singer and actress Libby Holman, the Reynoldses were divorced in Reno, Nevada, 23 November 1931. Smith Reynolds married Libby Holman on 29 November 1931 in the parlor of Monroe, Michigan Justice of the Peace Fred M. Schoepfer, just six days after his divorce from Cannon was final. Reynolds had asked Holman to marry him while still married to Cannon and had reportedly told her he would kill himself if she refused his offer. Holman, although a celebrated Broadway actress, temporarily gave up her career to preside over the Reynolds estate, Reynolda House. They threw many parties there.

Reynolds was an avid aviator like his older brother R. J. Reynolds, Jr., also known as "Dick".

After a couple of aborted starts, Reynolds began a long-distance flight (London to Hong Kong) on a “S.56C� amphibian biplane in December 1931 right after his marriage to Holman. She was touring the United States in a road production of Three's A Crowd, reprising her Broadway theatre role. His solo flight was not really publicized and he was completing the ocean portions via boat. His flight journal survives.

Reynolds died under mysterious circumstances from an automatic .32 caliber Mauser pistol shot through his head on the early morning of 6 July 1932, after a 21st birthday party for his friend Charles Gideon Hill, Jr., who was also Anne Cannon Reynolds's first cousin, at his Winston-Salem, North Carolina estate known as Reynolda. His wife Libby Holman Reynolds was pregnant with their child.

Weekly Transmission 04

11

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

Reynolds' boyhood friend and personal assistant Albert Bailey Walker had stayed over after the party, and he reported that he heard a gunshot from downstairs and immediately afterwards Holman ran to the balcony and shouted — "Smith's killed himself!"

Walker said he found Reynolds bleeding and unconscious upstairs, with a bullet wound in his right temple.

With Holman's help, Walker brought Reynolds to North Carolina Baptist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead four hours later at 5:25 am on July 6.

The death was originally ruled a suicide, but a coroner's inquiry subsequently ruled the death a murder. Both Walker and Holman were considered suspects in his death and were both indicted for first-degree murder of Reynolds — Holman for the murder itself and Walker as an accomplice.

The murder attracted national attention.

Reporters printed allegations that Holman had conducted an affair with Walker.

Reynolds' uncle William Neal Reynolds told the district attorney that the family supported dropping the charges; the prosecutor Carlisle Higgins, eventually did so for lack of evidence, and no trial was ever held.

Zachary Smith Reynolds is buried in the Salem Cemetery in Winston-Salem.

More about Libby Holman Reynolds Elizabeth Lloyd Holzman was born May 23, 1904, in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1904, her wealthy family grew destitute after Holman's uncle Ross Holzman embezzled nearly $1 million of their stock brokerage business. At some point, Alfred changed the family name from Holzman to Holman. Elizabeth graduatedfrom the University of Cincinnati on June 16, 1923, with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Holman later subtracted two years from her age, insisting she was born in 1906.

Holman was married three times, and had a variety of intimate relationships with both men and women throughout her lifetime. Her famous lesbian lovers included the DuPont heiress Louisa d'Andelot Carpenter, actress Jeanne Eagels and modernist writer Jane Bowles.

Carpenter was to play a significant part throughout Holman's lifetime. They raised their children and lived together and were openly accepted by their theater companions. She scandalized some by dating much younger men, such as fellow American actor Montgomery Clift, whom she mentored.

Weekly Transmission 04

12

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

Holman took an interest in one fan, Zachary Smith Reynolds, the heir to the R. J. Reynolds tobacco company. He was smitten with her from the start, despite their seven-year age difference. They met in Baltimore, Maryland in April 1930 after Reynolds saw Holman's performance in a road company staging of the play The Little Show.

Reynolds begged friend Dwight Deere Wiman, who was the show's producer, for an introduction to Holman.

Reynolds pursued her all around the world in his plane.

With the persuasion of her female lover, Louisa d'Andelot Carpenter, Holman and Reynolds, who went by his middle name, married on November 29, 1931 in the parlor of a house in Monroe, Michigan.

Reynolds wanted Holman to abandon her acting career, she consented by taking a one-year leave of absence. During this time, however, his conservative family was unable to bear Holman and her group of theater friends, who at her invitation often visited Reynolda, the family estate near Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Accusations and arguments among them were common.

In July 1932, during a 21st birthday party Reynolds gave at Reynolda for his friend and flying buddy Charles Gideon Hill, Jr., a first cousin to Reynolds's first wife Anne Ludlow Cannon Reynolds, Holman revealed to her husband that she was pregnant. A tense argument ensued.

Moments later, a shot was heard. Friends discovered Reynolds bleeding and unconscious with a gunshot wound to the head. Authorities initially ruled the shooting a suicide, but a coroner's inquiry ruled it a murder. Holman and Albert Bailey "Ab" Walker, a friend of Reynolds and a supposed lover of Holman, were indicted for murder.

Louisa d'Andelot Carpenter paid Holman's $25,000 bail at the Rockingham County Courthouse in Wentworth, North Carolina, with Holman appearing in such a dark dress and heavy veil many bystanders and reporters thought she was black or mixed race. The Reynolds family contacted the local authorities and had the charges dropped for fear of scandal.

Holman gave birth to the couple's child, Christopher Smith "Topper" Reynolds, on January 10, 1933. Journalist Milt Machlin investigated the death of Smith Reynolds and argued that Reynolds committed suicide and Holman a victim of the anti-Semitism of local authorities.

In 1934, Broadway producer Vinton Freedley offered Holman the starring role in the Cole Porter musical Anything Goes, but she declined... (Wikipedia)

Weekly Transmission 04

13

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

FBI SERVICE. Okey Odell, Militant Leader of Onion Workers, Hardin County, April 1935.

Vintage silver print, circa 245x195 mm, captions and date stamp verso.

Weekly Transmission 04

14

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

Hardin County Onion Pickers Strike, 1934 “Hardin County, Ohio, contained a large onion-growing region.

The Hardin County onion pickers strike was a strike by agricultural workers in Hardin County, Ohio, in 1934. Led by the Agricultural Workers Union, “Local 19724”, the strike began on June 20, two days after the trade union formed. After the kidnapping and beating of the union's leader and the intervention of the Ohio National Guard on behalf of the growers, the strike ended in October with a partial victory for the union. Some growers met the union's demand for a 35-cents-an-hour minimum wage, but the majority did not.

Wages and working conditions for agricultural workers in Hardin County were poor even before the onset of the Great Depression. A plentiful supply of Caucasian migrant farm workers kept wages far below those of other counties and states. Working conditions were harsh.

Laborers worked on their hands and knees weeding and picking onions. The work day was 10 hours long, with a 15-minute break for lunch and no overtime. There were no toilet facilities or restroom breaks, and water and first aid for injuries or heat exhaustion were not provided.

The black earth absorbed heat, and temperatures near the ground could reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 °C). Many workers lived in employer-provided housing, and were given an employer-owned milk cow (on loan) to prevent starvation.

Crop yields from the Hardin County onion fields were declining significantly by 1930 due to soil exhaustion as crop rotation was not practiced. As the Great Depression worsened, growers reduced the amount of land under cultivation even further to only 3,500 acres (14 km²).

Growers also cut wages and required laborers to work longer hours. By June 1934, economic conditions for farm workers in Hardin County were especially severe. The prevailing wage was 12 cents an hour, but many workers earned only 8 cents an hour. Eight out of 10 families were considered to be living in extreme poverty, and almost half of all workers reported working only 26 days a year.

When the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed in 1935, it specifically exempted agricultural workers from the protection of the law. Although it was not illegal for farm workers to organize unions, federal (and state) law did not protect their ability to do so. Subsequently, most employers discriminated heavily against agricultural workers who attempted to form unions, and used a variety of techniques (many heavy-handed, and some actually coercive) to resist farm unionization.

On June 18, 1934, weeders and pickers working on onion farms in Hardin County formed the éAgricultural Workers Unioné, under the leadership of Okey Odell, a 38-year-old weeder.

Weekly Transmission 04

15

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

The workers were assisted by J.M. Rizor, an organizer for the International Quarrymen's Union.

Their union was recognized by the American Federation of Labor (AFL) as a federal union, and listed as “Local 19724�.

The workers immediately demanded recognition of their union, a 23-cents-an-hour wage increase (to obtain a minimum wage of 35 cents an hour), and an eight-hour work day.

Led by the top four landowners, the 30 growers formed the Onion Growers' Association to oppose the union. Odell and Rizor asked to meet with the Association, but the growers refused and said they would let their fields be overgrown with weeds first. The growers subsequently told the press that meeting with the union was pointless, since the growers were already losing money. The union challenged this claim, pointing out that at least one grower had recently purchased three new automobiles. But the growers stuck by their claim. A few weeks later, the Ohio state legislature asked the growers to open their books as part of a state investigation into the strike. But the growers declined to do so. To the union, this was merely additional evidence that the growers were profitable.

Odell called a strike on June 20. About 800 of the county's 1,000 onion field workers walked out. To prevent replacement workers from entering the fields and breaking the strike, the strikers attempted to stop and search all automobiles entering the Scioto Marsh and Hog Creek Marsh areas. For the first week of the strike, there was no violence. The Socialist Party of America and the American Civil Liberties Union raised funds for strike relief.

The union also received assistance from the Ohio Unemployed League. The League was a branch of the American Workers Party (AWP).

The growers immediately went to court to prevent the union from picketing in the fields.

On June 22, Court of Common Pleas Judge Hamilton E. Hoge issued one of the most sweeping anti-labor injunctions in American history.

The injunction restricted picketing to groups of two. Judge Hoge left it up to the discretion of sheriffs' deputies how far apart each group must be. Initially, the union established 34 pickets at least 25 feet (8 m) apart. Deputies arrested half the strikers. The union increased the distance between pickets to 50 yards (16 m), and still arrests occurred. Distance between pickets was extended to 100 yards (90 m), then a quarter of a mile (400 m), and in some cases a half mile (800 m). Arrests continued. On a number of occasions, deputies called pickets together and, when they obeyed, arrested them for congregating unlawfully.

To enforce the injunction, 54 "special" sheriff's deputies were hired and sworn in.

Weekly Transmission 04

16

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

The deputies' salaries were paid for by the growers.

Although the deputies technically remained under the supervision of the Hardin County sheriff, the deputies were under the control of the growers and their field foremen. Most of the special sheriff's deputies were members of the Hardin County detachment of the Ohio National Guard and veterans of the Auto-Lite strike in nearby Toledo, which had only recently ended. The National Guard troops, most of whom were only 18 years old, were determined not to be intimidated by the picketers as they had been in Toledo. The newly appointed special deputies were armed with riot guns, machine guns, and tear gas equipment from the National Guard armory in Kenton, Ohio.

The union demanded to know why the state was providing the county with troops.

The special deputies quickly proved unruly. Local citizens complained that the guards were harassing them. The sheriff referred complaints to the commanding general of the Ohio National Guard, who then told petitioners that this was a matter for the local county sheriff.

When prominent Hardin County business leaders forced the sheriff to deal with these problems, the sheriff ordered an investigation. But the investigation was never carried out, and the National Guard troops' behavior worsened.

On June 27, the United States Department of Labor sent a mediator to Hardin County to help settle the strike. The growers agreed to raise the minimum wage by 3 cents up to 15 cents an hour, but the union rejected the “generous� offer.

Shots were fired at picketers and at union members attending meetings. The growers hired another 50 special deputies to patrol the fields with machine guns, and special deputies used extensive amounts of tear gas to harass and break up pickets. National Guard troops began clubbing and beating picketers whenever they encountered them.

The level of violence led to a large number of arrests. Over the next 20 days, more than 60 picketers were arrested. Odell was arrested and charged with contempt of court for violating Judge Hoge's injunction. A Scioto Land Company official had approached Odell on the street and brandished a gun in his face. Arrested by the town marshal, the official retaliated by having Odell arrested for "congregating" in violation of the injunction. Odell served 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

Near dawn on the morning of August 25, 1934, a bomb exploded at the home of Godfrey Ott, mayor of the town of McGuffey, Ohio. The explosion ripped away an entire side of the home. Although he denied any involvement with the bombing, Odell was arrested minutes later and taken back to the Hardin County jail.

Weekly Transmission 04

17

Thursday 26 January 2017

.

However, sheriff's deputies refused to charge Odell. As Odell was being booked, about 200 anti-union vigilantes rushed the jail, seized Odell, took him out of the jail and threw him on a waiting truck. Sheriff's deputies stopped the truck and demanded to know if Odell was aboard. Odell claimed he shouted, but the deputies ignored him. Odell also claimed that at least 15 sheriff's deputies were in the jail and could have prevented his abduction, but the county sheriff contended that only three deputies were on hand. To Odell and union sympathizers, the sheriff's deputies appeared to be cooperating in the kidnapping.

Odell was taken to Waynesfield, a small village in Auglaize County about 12 miles (19 km) away. There, Odell was beaten and threatened with death, then taken to a highway in midafternoon and left at the side of the road.

During the day, the town of McGuffey was seized by hundreds of armed anti-union vigilantes.

The vigilantes patrolled the town on foot and accosted any citizens they found on the street.

They demanded to know if the citizen was a union supporter. If the individual claimed not to be taking sides in the strike, the vigilantes threatened them with death and told them to leave town. As the capture of the town continued throughout the day, union members and their families barricaded themselves inside their homes, fearing for their lives.

During the afternoon, Odell hitch hiked back to McGuffey. He obtained a revolver from his home and then walked with his brother through the center of town, defying the vigilantes to kill him. Odell returned home in the late afternoon. After Odell returned to his house, a crowd of 200 men and women gathered in front of the building and demanded that he leave town or suffer the consequences.

The day after his kidnapping, Odell sought to invoke the Federal Kidnapping Act, a new federal statute enacted in 1932 in the wake of the Lindbergh kidnapping. But on August 27, a federal prosecutor said the Federal Kidnapping act would not apply as Odell had not been taken across state lines or held for more than five days.

On August 28, federal mediator Fox met with Ott, several large growers, and Odell. Odell agreed to reduce his demand for a wage increase to 25 cents an hour. The discussions went so well that Fox felt a resolution to the strike could be reached within a few days.

The larger growers were able to employ significant numbers of replacement workers, several of the smaller growers raised wages to 35 cents per hour, but did not recognize the union.

But as onion production continued to drop over the next several years due to soil exhaustion, fewer onion pickers were needed in Hardin County. By the mid-1940s, most of the Hardin County agricultural workers had been replaced by Mexican migrant workers.� (Wikipedia)

N°2, The Prosecutor, detail

Serge Plantureux - Photographies Cabine d'expertises et d'investigations 80 rue Taitbout, rez-de-chaussée (Entrée du square d'Orléans) 75009 Paris + 33 140 16 80 80 www.plantureux.fr Number Four, Third Year, of the Weekly Transmission has been uploaded on Thursday 26 January 2017 at 15:15 (Paris time) Forthcoming uploads and transmissions on Thursdays : Thursday 2 February 2017, Thursday 9 February 2017, 15:15 (Paris time) The “cabinet” is open every Thursday 3-7 pm every other day by appointment all transmissions are on :

www.plantureux.fr