Faxed Letter From Court to Speas Requesting Response To Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

    N.A.A.C.R





nr1***"











Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL, Appellant.

VS.

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellee.

Appealed From the Woodruff Circuit Court, 
Southern District.

ABSTRACT AND BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

W. J. LANIER,

ROY. D. CAMPBELL,

Attorneys for Appellant.





IN THE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL, Appellant.
VS.

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellee.

Appealed From the Woodruff Circuit Court, 
Southern District.

Abstract and Brief for Appellant.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Robert Bell and Grady Swain were indicted by 
the Grand Jury of St. Francis County, charged with 
murder in the first degree. They were accused of 
drowning Julius McCollum in Cut Off Bayou on 
December 29, 1927. They were originally tried in 
the St. Francis Circuit Court and convicted of mur­
der in the first degree and sentenced to be electro­
cuted. Upon an appeal to this court the sentence 
was reversed and the cause remanded for a new 
trial. (Bell & Swain v. State, 177 Ark., 1034). 
At the October term 1928, of the St. Francis Circuit



Court the defendants filed an application for a 
change of venue, which application was granted 
and the cases were transferred to the Southern Dis­
trict of the Woodruff Circuit Court for trial, the 
proceedings of the St. Francis Circuit Court having 
been certified as required by law. The causes were 
set for trial in the Woodruff Circuit Court of the 
Southern District on the 5th day of March, 1929, 
and upon motion of defendants a severance of their 
trial was had, the defendants electing to place Rob­
ert Bell upon trial. As a result of the trial the de­
fendant was convicted of murder in the first degree 
and punishment fixed at life imprisonment in the 
penitentiary and motion for a new trial was filed on 
the 8th day of March, 1929, and an order overruling 
the same was entered on the 12th day of March, 
1929, and sixty days allowed for the filing of a 
bill of exceptions, which was done and an appeal 
was granted to this court. The circumstances and 
facts surrounding the alleged death of the deceased 
are as follows:

Juluis McCullom, a white boy between the age 
of eleven and twelve years, strong, active and 
healthy, and Elbert Thomas, a one-eyed negro, 
nineteen years of age, tall, healthy and robust, were 
drowned in Cut Off Bayou, sometime between 
four and five o’clock on the afternoon of 
December 29th, 1927, a bright, sunny and cold day.

— 2—



This occurred some one hundred and fifty yards 
from the store of McCullom’s father and out in 
front of the same. The store faced the South and 
had glass windows and a door facing the bayou. 
Running by the store on the South was a public 
highway leading from Marianna, Hughes and other 
towns, which intersected a sixty-foot highway from 
Forrest City leading to Memphis. In front on the 
South side of the store at a distance of sixty 
or sixty-five yards was a wire fence, run­
ning along the highway, East and West an 
enclosed pasture which was free from all 
obstruction lying South and in front of the 
store. Across this pasture was Cut Off Bayou, 
making a semi-circle. The West sector crossed the 
sixty-foot highway East and West from Hughes to 
Memphis, one hundred and fifty yards from the 
store, a little South and East of the store 
the East sector crossed the same highway af­
ter it joined the one leading from Forrest City.

There are two bridges on the east and west 
public highway from Hughes to Memphis across the 
bayou, one at a point where the highway crosses 
the bayou West of the store and at a point 
where the public highway crosses the bayou East 
of the store building. A garage facing the South 
and East is at the juncture of and on the South side 
of the Forrest City and Greasy Corner public high-

— 3—



way, and on the North side of the Hughes and 
Memphis public highway at a distance of seventy 
or seventy-five feet and a little South of West of the 
store building. An old log house or barn is located 
one hundred yards (Tr. 66) due East and in plain 
view of the store building and seven or eight feet 
South of the Hughes and Memphis Highway in the 
open, level pasture. There were no trees, build­
ings, undergrowth, weeds or anything between the 
store building and the log barn or house to obstruct 
the view and the same was true as to the bayou 
West of the store building except probably the 
garage at one point, nor was there anything to ob­
struct the view in the way of trees, houses, bushes, 
undergrowth or hills between the store and the bank 
of the bayou which was very narrow. A school 
house used for colored children was situated ad­
jacent to and on the West bank of the bayou and 
on the South side of public highway at the West 
end of the highway bridge which crosses the bayou 
about one hundred and fifty yards West of 
the store building and horse traders and their 
families were camping on the school grounds on 
West bank of bayou. Robert Swain, colored share­
cropper, the father of Grady Swain, was living near 
the store. Grady Swain, small of stature for a boy 
in his fourteenth year who was often at the store 
on errands, played with Julius McCullom and

A



other children in and around the store. In the 
early part of the afternoon of the 29th day of 
December, 1927, Grady Swain’s mother sent him 
to the store to get her a bottle of turpentine which 
he purchased and came home about four o’clock 
that afternoon where he remained the rest of the 
day. While on this errand Grady Swain carried 
some groceries for a white woman who was camp­
ed at the colored schoolhouse and crossed one of 
the bridges above described, before he had gotten 
the turpentine at the store.

Robert Bell is of medium weight and low of 
stature for a boy in his eighteenth year whose 
father lived a short distance from the store and 
carried the Star Route Mail from one small post- 
office to another, and owned an old horse which 
Robert used occasionally carrying the mail for his 
father and which he often rode after delivering the 
mail pouch to the McCullom store and McCullom’s 
home, a distance of upwards three-fourths of a 
mile (Tr. 64) northeast of the store and which is 
reached by going east from the store to or near the 
old barn or house over the East and West public 
highway running by the store and then going North 
and up a country neighborhood road. Holbert Mc­
Cullom, a child of Mr. and Mrs. B. McCullom, 
would frequently by himself or behind Robert Bell 
ride this horse up and down the public highway

— 5—



extending East and West between the store and 
the open pasture for childish amusement. Julius 
McCullom also often rode this old horse up and 
down the same highway. Robert Bell, this par­
ticular afternoon, after he had carried and deliver­
ed the mail, stopped at the store as usual with the 
horse and was either at or near the store with Julius 
McCullom, Elbert Thomas and other boys on the 
return of Ransom McCullom, brother of Mr. B. Mc­
Cullom and Uncle of Julius McCullom, from Hughes 
with a truck load of merchandise between 3 :30 and 
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Julius, Elbert and 
other boys were around the store upon the return 
of Ransom McCullom with truck of merchandise 
and were around the store during the time he was 
unloading same. Mr. B. McCullom and Mrs. Lena 
McCullom, his wife, and their younger children, 
one of whom was little Holbert, eight years of age, 
were at the store when Ransom McCullom returned 
and unloaded the merchandise. Mr. B. McCullom 
was unwell, so spent most of his time by the stove 
in the store. Mr. B. McCullom, Mrs. Lena McCullom 
or Ransom McCullom did not notice anything un­
usual, unnatural or out of the way in the conduct or 
demeanor of any of the boys, but all acted and ap­
peared perfectly natural in every way.

Sometime after the arrival of Mr. Ransom Mc­
Cullom and unloading of the merchandise. Mrs.



Lena McCullom started to her home, taking with 
her the children who were younger than little Hol- 
bert. After she and these children had left the 
store and walked a part of the distance towards 
her home, Julius came to her and insisted that she 
permit him to take her and the children home in 
his father’s car, which she declined to do for the 
reason that she did not want him to drive the car. 
After Mrs. McCullom had refused to permit Julius 
to carry her and the children to her home, in the 
McCullom car, Mr. A. H. Davidson came up in his 
car and offered to and did take her and the chil­
dren home. This was the last time Julius was seen 
alive by anyone of the family, Robert Bell was near 
the front door of the store at the time Mrs. Mc­
Cullom and younger children left. Elbert Thomas, 
a hanger on in and around the McCullom store, 
loafed around there practically all of the time, oc­
casionally assisting in doing rough and heavy work, 
slept in the loft over the store. The boy Elbert 
Thomas had been going across the bayou with 
Julius McCullom, setting and baiting traps and had 
been using a boat on the bayou, where the drown­
ing occurred. The proof shows that the last time 
either of them were seen, was in going across the 
pasture towards the boat on the bayou where they 
were later drowned and at this time were alone; 
evidently on their way to their traps. Mr. B. and

7—



Ransom McCullom remained at the store the re­
mainder of the day waiting on the trade. Shortly 
after Mrs. McCullom reached home Robert Bell, 
who had upwards of six years run errands and as­
sisted her with chores in and around her home for 
something to eat, played with and took care of the 
children as was the custom of colored boys, came 
to her home riding the same horse and went into 
the house and asker her, as usual, if he could help 
her with her work. She prepared the milk and 
poured it into the churn. He churned until she 
found the milk was cold and she stopped him. 
Then she got the lamps for filling them with oil but 
the oil can was empty so she sent him to the store 
for oil. In going for oil he went on the horse to the 
store, filled the oil can and was preparing to get 
upon the horse with little Holbert McCullom, when 
Mr. B. McCullom came to the store door and told 
him to tell Mrs. McCullom to send Julius to the 
store. He and little Holbert went back to the Mc­
Cullom home and he delivered the oil and Mr. Mc- 
Cullom’s message to Mrs. McCullom, who stated 
that Julius was not at home and directed that 
Robert return to assist Mr. McCullom at the store. 
Robert returned on the horse and reported to 
McCullom that Julius was not at home and he as­
sisted at the store by measuring potatoes, drawing 
oil, etc., for something like three or three and a

— 8—



half hours, until quite a long time after the body 
of Julius had been discovered and carried to the 
store in the presence of both Mr. B. McCullom and 
Mr. Ransom McCullom, Joe Cox, A. P. Campbell 
and many others who had assembled at the store, 
but none detected anything in his movements or 
conduct indicating anything unusual or out of the 
way. About nine or nine thirty o’clock that night 
and after the recovery and removal of the body of 
Julius to the store where it had remained for some­
time, Robert Bell and A. P. Campbell left the store 
on the horse, went to the home of Campbell, a dis­
tance of about one-half mile, where both spent the 
remainder of the night, discussing on the way from 
store to the house of Campbell seven colored girls. 
When it was learned that Julius was not at home, 
search was made for him and his body was found 
one hundred and fifty yards or steps in front of 
the store building in the bayou about eight o’clock 
that night. No wounds or bruises of any kind or 
character were found on him except a small blue 
scar on his neck. His clothes showed no marks of 
a struggle or any evidence of a difficulty or a rob­
bery. Elbert Thomas was missing and it was sur­
mised that Elbert Thomas had drowned him, 
which surmise continued up to the discovery of the 
body of Elbert Thomas some eight or ten days 
thereafter; in the meantime Mr. Campbell, the

9



sheriff, had fifteen hundred circulars struck de­
scribing Thomas and detailing what he conceived 
to be a crime and which were broadcast throughout 
the country. Great excitement prevailed; parties 
formed for poor old Thomas should he be ap­
prehended alive.

Grady Swain was arrested by two deputy 
sheriffs the next morning as he was seen at the 
store the afternoon of the disappearance of Julius, 
taken to the place where the inquest was being held, 
questioned and brought to the Forrest City jail 
about 3 :30 o’clock that afternoon where Mr. J. M. 
Campbell and Lis Chief Deputy, John I. Jones, that 
night removed him from his cell, and there whip­
ped him with a hamestring about three feet long 
with buckle on the end of it and forced a confession 
from him. He was then taken by the Sheriff, who 
weighs upwards of two hundred pounds, to Brink- 
ley, where he remained in jail possibly twenty-four 
hours to avoid mob violence, then returned to For­
rest City, placed in jail a short time and then rush­
ed to the penitentiary walls at Little Rock to pre­
vent being lynched. Upon reaching the walls the 
same Mr. Campbell, in the presence and with the 
assistance of the warden, Mr. S. L. Todhunter, 
again with a strap three and one-half inches wide 
by four or four and a half feet long, with handle 
on end and in the hands of the warden, again whip-

— 10—



ped this fourteen-year-old boy and while he was 
prostrate, face down, forced a confession out of him.

Appellant, Robert Bell, also arrested by the 
same officers on the morning following the night 
the body of Julius McCullom was found, taken to the 
McCullom store and before the Coroner’s Jury, inter­
rogated, was taken to jail in Forrest City on the af­
ternoon of December 30, 1927, where he was held 
in a cell alone for several days and to avoid lynch­
ing or Burning rushed to the walls at Little Rock 
by Joe Campbell, son and deputy under his father, 
J. M. Campbell, placed in a cell where he was con­
tinuously, save when removed by Mr. Todhunter 
for the purpose of and who did, after persistently, 
continuously, over-bearingly, daily and nightly in­
terrogate him, part of the time in the presence of 
the same Mr. Campbell and Mr. B. McCullom and 
a part by himself and who on three different occas­
ions beat him with the same strap four and 
one half feet long by three and one half 
inches wide, with handle, after having him 
remove his coat and lie prostrate on the 
concrete floor, face down, forced a confession from 
him. Two of these whippings were in the presence 
of Mr. Campbell and Mr. B. McCullom. All of 
these whippings given by Mr. Todhunter were in 
the hearing of Grady Swain, and one given by Mr. 
Todhunter while Grady Swain, who at the com­

i l —



mand of Mr. Todhunter, was sitting astride Robert 
Bell’s head, holding him still while he was being 
beaten.

The fact that Elbert Thmoas had disappeared 
or could not be found, gave rise to the surmise that 
Julius McCullom had been drowned by him and it 
was this idea in the mind of Sheriff Campbell when 
he whipped Grady Swain the first time and forced 
the first confession; and this was done in the pres­
ence of Robert Bell who denied any knowledge of 
the same. After his whipping in the Forrest City 
jail Swain confessed that he and Elbert Thomas had 
drowned the McCullom boy. At this time there 
was confined in the same jail A. P. Campbell, who 
testified with regard to the conversation with Bell 
that night after the finding of the body. They also 
had in jail a brother of Elbert Thomas. He was 
whipped again the next day. Both whippings took 
place where Bell could see them. Swain was then 
taken to Little Rock and was being carried back 
about two days later when the body of Elbert 
Thomas was discovered. Then it became neces­
sary to procure a different confession, which was 
done. As a result of another whipping of Grady 
Swain and several administered to Robert Bell, these 
boys confessed to having drowned both Julius Mc­
Cullom and Elbert Thomas and their confessions re­
duced to writing. These are in brief the circum-

— 12—



stances shown at the first trial when the first con­
viction was had. This judgment was reversed by 
the Supreme Court for the reason that there was no 
proof of the corpus delicti. Upon the trial in the 
Woodruff Circuit Court, the written confessions 
were excluded as being involuntary, but the trial 
court permitted testimony of oral confessions ob­
tained under the identical circumstances, and the 
proof of the corpus delicti consisted of the follow­
ing:

Will Thomas testified that Eobert Bell came to 
his home about six o’clock and lost $10.00 in a crap 
game. This witness is a brother of Elbert Thomas 
who was drowned, had been put in jail on account 
of this drowning, but had not mentioned this to 
anyone until this trial and could not mention an 
individual who was in this crap game.

German Jones testified that on the afternoon 
these parties were drowned, that he was hunting 
on the bayou and heard a splash in the water and 
he saw two colored people throw a white human in 
the water. They were standing in a boat and they 
were twenty-five or thirty steps away. Jones was 
across the bayou from the store. This witness could 
not tell what sort of looking boys they were that 
he saw, nor if they were bright or colored; 
whether they were large or small, what kind of

— 13



clothes they had on; whether they wore hats or 
caps or had on boots or overalls; could give no in­
formation whatever as to the parties he saw 
throwing the body in the bayou and admitted that 
he had stayed around there three months and had 
never said anything about it and had lived with a 
party who was then dead while there. He had 
heard about the drowning that night but said noth­
ing about it.

These witnesses gave the only testimony 
showing that any crime of any nature had been 
committed and upon this state of facts the jury re­
turned a verdict of murder in the first degree and 
fixed punishment of Bell at life imprisonment in the 
penitentiary. While the jury was deliberating 
upon this case they were unable to agree for about 
a day and came into court and reported that it was 
impossible to reach a verdict. After questioning 
the jury and ascertaining that they had finally 
reached the point where the ballot stood eleven to 
one the court remarked:

“ Gentlemen, you seem to have been making 
progress towards a verdict and the court is not in­
clined to discharge you yet without your further 
deliberation.” The court then requested them 
to discuss the case with one another freely 
in an effort to reach a verdict and perhaps

_ 14—



some of them might change their minds about 
the matter and reach a verdict for “ they 
say that ‘Only a fool never changes his mind 
sometime in life and that any honest man 
will change his mind when convinced of his error.’ ”

Remarks of the court were objected to at this 
time and objection was overruled and exception 
was saved, after which the jury returned their ver­
dict as above suggested.

Upon the jury being recalled the following 
testimony was had:

J. M. Campbell, being recalled, page 285:

I am Sheriff of St. Francis County and have 
been for four years and am now serving my third 
term. I knew Julius McCullom during his lifetime. 
Had seen him. I knew his father. I made an in­
vestigation on the 29th day of December, 1927, the 
day he was drowned. The defendant was arrested 
soon after it happened. I had been away from 
home and they were in jail when I came back. We 
kept Grady in jail a day or two and then we carried 
him to Little Rock. Was afraid there might be a 
mob. The defendant was kept in jail something 
like a week and was then carried to Little Rock. 
I talked with the defendant about the drowning. 
I offered no inducement to make him make a state­
ment and no hope of reward and I offered him no

15—



threats or intimidations. He made the statement 
of his own accord. He told me that he and Grady 
Swain drowned Mr. McCullom’s litttle boy and a 
negro by the name of Thomas. The negro by 
the name of Thomas was found in the Bayou. He 
went into detail. In telling it Grady Swain said 
this boy (Bell) drowned the white boy and he 
drowned the negro and in telling that Bell said he 
drowned the negro and Grady drowned the white 
boy and I said: No, you drowned that white boy
and he said: No, I didn’t, Grady drowned him.
He got up and took his jumper and straightened 
up and twisted the sleeve of the jumper under his 
arm and they stuck the little boy’s head under the 
water and strangeled him and laid him back in the 
boat and pulled his boots and socks off and shook 
the boots. He said they did it for the money and 
they got $20.05. I don’t remember what he said 
they did with the money. I think he told us one 
time maybe that it had been hid over there. He 
said he went to McCullom’s store and bought a 
stick of candy with the five cents and broke it in 
half and gave Grady Swain half. I don’t think he 
told how the McCullom boy was dressed. I asked 
him, when he told me he drowned the colored boy, 
how he could drown a man as big as he was and he 
told me that he put his foot on the side of the boat 
and gave it a tilt and as he tilted the boat he shoved

- 1 6  —



him and he went over the back of the boat. Then 
he took his sweater and demonstrated how they 
drowned the white boy. That was when I told him 
that he drowned the white boy and he said Grady 
drowned the white boy and he showed me how 
they took him by his feet and held him under 
water and strangled him and then they pulled him 
up and pulled his boots off and strangled him a 
second time and then pushed him overboard out of 
the boat. I asked him how the boy’s socks were 
fastened and he said one was fastened with a sup­
porter and one was fastened with a safety pin. I 
asked the other negro and he said the same thing.

CROSS EXAMINATION, page 289:

I was in Hot Springs when the drowning oc­
curred. I guess it must have been about the 29th 
when I got home. It could have been the 30th. 
I think it was the 29th. I could be mistaken. I 
read about the drowning in the newspaper on the 
train. I went from the station to my home at the 
jail and found Grady Swain and Robert Bell in jail 
and a couple more negroes. I don’t know whether 
they went in there at the same time or not. One 
negro was named Bell and the other was named 
Thomas. Bell was the father of the little negro. 
Old man Bell was there. I havn’t any idea of 
what became of him. I was not in the jail when he

— 17—



was whipped. I don’t know whether he was whip­
ped or not. There was a negro in there by the 
name of A. P. Campbell. Nothing was done to 
him that I know of. If he was whipped I don’t 
know about it. I think he was put in jail after I 
came home, but I am not sure about that. We kept 
Bell in jail about a week or ten days. The old man 
Bell I mean, and then turned him out. We kept 
Campbell in jail about two weeks and finally 
turned him out. We had him in jail trying to work 
it out. I don’t know what we had Bell’s father in 
jail for. The citizens over there asked that he be 
brought there. We kept the father of Bell in jail 
something like a week and turned him out. We 
kept Campbell in jail something like ten days. I 
don’t know whether you would call it a fishing ex­
pedition or not. I felt it was my duty to work 
it out if I could. I had circulars struck to try to 
find the one-eyed negro that I understood commit­
ted the crime and later found him drowned in the 
bayou. Mr. McCulom offered a reward of 
$500.00. At that time we thought that Thomas had 
done it and I thought it until they found him 
drowned. We kept Campbell in jail until after 
Thomas’ body was found. He was brought out and 
questioned several times. I talked to him while he 
was there. I did not try to make him confess. 
Several parties from Greasy Corner came up and

- 18-



talked to him. This Campbell is the same Camp­
bell that testified in this case. He is the one we 
had in jail. He did not say anything about Robert 
Bell until Mr. Smalley, the man he worked for, came 
up and talked to him. He had not told anything 
about it up until that time, and not until Mr. 
Smalley talked to him out in the ante-room, or little 
office next to the jail. After considerable talking 
to him he finally admitted that Bell had told him. 
When I came back from Little Rock Grady Swain 
was in my possession in jail. The deputy in charge 
was John I. Jones and the Chief of Police at Forrest 
City. The Chief of Police went out about the time 
I went in. I don’t know what was said by them and 
don’t know what had occurred with this little boy. 
We had two Thomases. We had a darkey in jail 
who told that he had relatives in Marianna or Hel­
ena and we went down there and could not find his 
relatives and came back. I don’t know about hav­
ing whipped him. This man Thomas who was on 
the stand last night was the same Thomas 
who was in jail. We kept him about a 
week. I did not whip the Swain boy or the 
Bell boy in jail. I hit Grady Swain three licks with 
a short hamestring like we use for bunk straps and 
whipped him for the way he answered me. I want 
to say this, that the confession we had gotten out 
of him was not true. He did not talk to suit me

— 19—



and did not answer like I thought he should and I 

used this hamestring on him. The strap had a 

buckle on it. I held to the buckle when I whipped 

him. At this time Bell was in jail and there was a 
wall ten inches thick and an iron door shut between 
them. I sent Bell back in the kitchen when I had 
Swain in the ante-room. I think maybe I carried 
him back in there and talked to him. In the ante­
room of the jail there is a door two feet square in 
the big door that you enter the jail and there is a 
slide that opens for you to put things through. I 
don’t know who gave me the strap or whether it 
came out or not. I don’t remember just how I got 
it. We keep them in there to swing bunks on. It 
seems that we kept Bell about a week before we 
brought him to Little Rock. As soon as they found 
the one-eyed negro down in the Bayou I carried 
him to Little Rock. It was about eight or ten days 
after we found Julius before they found the negro 
Thomas. My son brought Bell to Little Rock. I 
had gone over the day before and started to bring 
Swain back. Bell had been in the walls maybe two 
or three days before I saw him the first time. I 
think Mr. McCullom was with me. I don’t think 
Mr. Todhunter was. The next time I saw Bell in 
the walls was in the week sometime. I was over 
there the following Sunday. I think this was three 
or four days after he was brought to the walls. It

— 20—



was nine days before they got the body of Thomas 
out of the water. A week or ten days. I carried 
Bell to Little Rock at once after they got Thomas’ 
body out of the water. I made two trips. It might 
have been a week after they got the body out. 
After I brought Bell over here it may have been a 
week before I was here the second time. The sec­
ond time was when he told me what they had ad­
mitted. That was on Sunday the second trip I 
made. I don’t know what had been done to Bell 
prior to that time. I don’t know whether he had 
been whipped in the penitentiary walls or not. 
I don’t know that I seen him whipped that day. I 
don’t know whether it was the time I testified about 
the brushing he got. I will say this, I know he was 
whipped but I cannot say that I saw it. I don’t re­
member that I did. I did not testify in a former 
trial that I saw him whipped twice. My testimony 
was read this morning in which I said I had seen him 
whipped twice. I saw him hit. You could hit a 
man hard enough with a cowhide strap three and 
a half inches wide with a handle on it.

At this point witness’s testimony of the previous 
trial is read to him in which he admitted that he 
was standing there looking and watching when the 
defendant was whipped, in which testimony the wit­
ness states that they whipped the boy to try to lo­
cate the money. That while he did not whip him

■21—



he stood there and watched him whipped and saw 
Mr. Todhunter whip him. He used a strap, a 
leather strap, and did not know whether it had a 
handle on it or not.

We went back to Little Rock after this con­
fession and worked on that money to try to locate 
that. I think I made one trip. I understand that 
Mr. Todhunter is the man that done the whipping. 
I do not know whether he had whipped the boys 
before they had made the statement in regard to 
the money or not. He may have been whipped 
there in the penitentiary. I was at home.

Witness continues, transcript 303:

The defendant, (Bell) made a confession to 
me on the second trip. I guess I made three trips 
in all. I don’t know whether he had been whipped 
previous to my visit or not. He may have been 
whipped every day.

Mrs. Lena McCullom (Tr. 306) :

I am the mother of Julius McCullom, the little 
boy that was drowned on the 29th day of December, 
1927. When he left home he had on rubber boots. 
They were not very good and leaked. The night 
before he stayed at home. He pulled off a pair of 
little men’s socks with a pair of girl socks under­
neath. He left one supporter on the socks and I

22—



am sure he had on the other one. He generally- 
used a safety pin before he got his new supporters 
and pinned his socks to his union suit.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

We live about a quarter of a mile from the 
store. The road runs East and West in front of that 
store. I live kinda back in the Northern direction. 
The road is traveled a right smart by the people 
who live on Mr. Smalley’s place. People from Mari­
anna come through there and from Hughes and 
from Memphis and from Widener. The road was 
traveled a great deal. I went home with Mr. 
Davidson. I had started out to walk. I was at 
the store with my children, all except one. I was 
in the store with my husband a part of the time. 
Was there when Mr. Ransom McCullom came back 
from Hughes with a load of freight and stayed un­
til he unloaded it. He came back with the freight 
about the middle of the afternoon. Julius was in 
the store. I did not see Grady Swain. Robert 
Bell was on the front porch and started into the 
store as I started out. I did not stay at the store 
long after Mr. Ransom McCullom came back with 
the freight. I was begging my little boy, Francis, 
to go home with me and he did not want to go home 
unless he could ride and I started off walking. Mr. 
Davidson asked me to ride and I hollered then and

— 23



told Francis to come on and Julius brought Francis 
out and put him in the car and that was the last 
time I saw him. Julius came out from the store. 
Sometime after I reached home Robert came down 
to the house. I had known Robert (Bell) for six 
years. He had been coming around home. We 
had given that boy clothes and doctored his sore 
feet, put clothes on him and had always treated 
him nice. He played with my children and they 
rode his horse. He had been riding his horse around 
there and he had been letting Julius ride and Julius 
was crazy about a horse. It was the horse he used 
carrying the mail. Soon after I got home he came 
up riding on his horse. I had been there about 
three quarters of an hour maybe. I don’t remem­
ber. I was not paying any attention to the time. 
He got off of his horse and came into the house and 
asked me if I did not have something he could do, 
something for him and I said, “ Robert if you want 
to help me you can churn.”  It was sitting close to 
the stove though I had just built a fire. I had been 
gone all day, the milk was not ready to churn. He 
caught hold of the churn and said, Let me churn, 
and he churned a little bit. I started to fill the 
lamp with oil and I said, I haven’t got a bit of coal 
oil, and Robert said, “Let me go and get the oil 
for you,” and I told him, “ All right.” He went and 
got the oil and when he came back it was dusky

24—



dark, and that is all I know. He came down on his 
horse and hitched it and offered to help me churn 
and offered to help me do other chores. He would 
have done anything I asked him to do. He went 
to the store and got the coal oil. When he came 
back he had little Holbert riding the horse with 
him and he asked me if Julius was at the house and 
I told him “ no” and I says, “ you get on back to the 
store and help, you know Daddy ain’t able 
to work;” that boy had been selling coal oil and 
helping around the store and to do things like that, 
as we thought he was a good boy. He had been 
helping around off and on at the store for four or 
five years and he had been a good boy. Never had 
stolen anything and never had caught him telling 
a story. He had never mistreated the children but 
was good to them. He was known as a good Christian 
boy if there was ever one and he had never done 
anything to my children and he had always been 
good and kind to me and did what he was told. 
When Robert first came down it seems like I was 
lying on the bed. I took a nervous spell after I 
went home. I felt awfully bad and I got up and 
he wanted to do something for me and he says; “ I 
come to see if you didn’t have something I could do 
for you.” He had been eating there since Christ­
mas. I had given him something of every­
thing. I did not notice anything out of the way

— 25



about his conduct. Did not have him on my mind.
I did not notice his clothes, whether they were wet 
or whether his shoes were wet. I noticed nothing1 
out of the way. I noticed sometimes a tear would 
drop out of his eyes. There was something the 
matter with one of his eyes. I have always noticed 
a tear in them. The last time he came back to the 
house was about eight o’clock and I sent him back 
to the store and he did not come back any more. 
When Julius left that morning I did not notice how 
he was dressed. He had on a sweater and overalls 
and pants. He had on a cap. It had a light on it. 
I did not give Julius any money that morning or 
that day. I don’t know whether he took any out 
of the cash drawer or not. Julius was eleven years 
old. He was strong and robust and active and was 
a good swimmer. He could beat pretty nearly any­
body swimming. Elbert Thomas was pretty tall. 
Don’t seem like he had much flesh. He was the 
one-eyed negro. He had been there all fall pick­
ing cotton. He stayed over the store up stairs. 
When I testified before I said that I left the store 
about 3:30 or the middle of the afternoon. I ex­
pect it was 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock. I don’t know ex­
actly the time. I don’t know how long it was from 
the time I left the store until Robert Bell came to 
my house. I expect about an hour or three- 
quarters, maybe. The second trip he made

— 26



back to my house was about sundown and about 
dusky dark when he came there the last time with 
my little boy Holbert. The second time it was 
four or five o’clock. It was turning dusky dark. 
I went down to the store the next morning after 
Julius was drowned. I did not see Robert Bell 
when they brought him there. I did not see him 
anymore until in Forrest City when they had the 
trial.

B. McCULLOM, Tr. 319:

I live in Greasy Corner in St. Francis County 
and am the father of Julius McCullom. There is 
a school building across the bayou going towards 
Hughes, about two hundred and fifty or three 
hundred yards from my store. They did not have 
school on the 29th of December, I did not see any 
children. It is a colored school.

Witness introduces a plat of the grounds sur­
rounding his store and explains the same at tran­
script page 320.

You cross about three bayous before getting 
to the schoolhouse from my store. However, the 
bridge only crosses one. There was a boat in the 
bayou where the little boy was drowned. It be­
longed to me. We used the boat during the over­
flow. There was no other boat in the bayou. That 
was my pasture that we used down there. The

— 27—



bayou is pretty good sized when the water is up 
and very small when it is down. There is a drain 
and then a slough like and then Fifteen Mile Bayou. 
“ F” on the plat represents my store and road num­
ber fifty is in front. “ D” represents the road which 
runs to Hughes across the bayou on the bridge. 
Number fifty is the main road. My pasture com­
mences at the bridge and goes around the bend to 
the road in front of the store and up to the old log 
house and back down to the bayou. The pasture 
is between where my boy was drowned and my 
store. It would not be possible for a man to stand 
on my porch and see the edge of the water where 
my little boy was drowned. The water is down 
under the hill. It would not be possible to stand 
on the road going to Hughes and see it. I have 
lived there five years. I have a store and a farm 
there. Where my boy was drowned was in my 
pasture. I was in the store that afternoon and had 
been sick but was sitting up. Sometimes back in 
the room and sometimes at the stove. I saw Julius 
that afternoon in and out of the store. Julius car­
ried money. He carried money to school. These 
colored boys were around my store there. Robert 
Bell had been around my house for four years I 
think. I went with Mr. Campbell to Little Rock 
when the defendant was in the penitentiary. I had 
a conversation with Robert Bell and he came right

•28



out and told it. We did not offer him any threats 
or hope of reward or make him any promises to 
make the statement. I told him that we wanted 
him to make the statement for the other boy had 
confessed and we wanted to see if he could tell the 
same thing. We wanted to know if we had 
the right parties or not. He said “ Well, I done it.” 
I said, “ Robert, why did you do this anyhow?” and 
he said “ I am 20 years old and I hadn’t killed 
anybody and I needed twenty dollars to get 
a suit of clothes and I learned the boy had 
money on him and I wanted it to get a suit of 
clothes.”  I asked him how he managed to do it 
and he said he got Elbert in the boat and dashed 
up the water out of the boat and after he got his 
pocketbook he took five dollars out of it and gave 
it back to him and he put it in his pocket. I had 
been after Elbert about working, he lived on 
the place, and Elbert got mad and told these boys 
he had some money. He said he took the pocket- 
book and gave it back to Grady in the other end of 
the boat and Grady took a $5.00 bill out of it and 
handed it to him and he gave it back to the negro 
and when he went to dip water out of the boat he 
pushed him in the back and he went head 
end into the water and he didn’t come up 
but once. The water was awful deep back there, 
and cold, and the negro went down in about twenty

— 29—



feet of water; where he was found it was fifteen or 
twenty feet deep. The negro had on overalls and 
rubber boots and a coat. I do not thing the negro 
ever could swim. He said he shoved him over into 
the water. Then he told us how he drowned the 
boy. He said he held his head under water and 
strangled him and then pulled his boots off to get 
his money out of his boots. He held him under the 
water until he was unconscious so he could pull his 
boots off and he couldn’t holler. I tried to ask him 
about the boots and I said he had on leather 
boots and I said, “ He didn’t have on rubber 
boots.”  I said, “ He had on leather boots, what did 
you do with them?” He said, “ He didn’t.”  I said, 
“ I know you are lying about it because I bought 
him some and I know he had them on that morn­
ing.”  He said, “ He had on rubber boots.” That 
is what we found, I found the leather boots under 
the counter, he changed that day and I didn’t see 
him. I didn’t believe it hardly, and I said, “ I have 
the other facts and I don’t believe that and I want 
to know the truth of it.”  He said, “ That is the 
truth, when you find them you will find rubber 
boots.”  I insisted, I thought maybe he sold them 
and I would find them as evidence in the case, that 
is the reason I wanted to find the leather boots. 
When we found the little boy there drowned there 
were no boots on him. They were found later. I

— 30—



asked him about his socks, how they were fastened 
up and he says, “ One of them, the best I remember, 
had a supporter on it, on one leg and a safety pin 
on the other that held the socks up.”  He and 
Robert were not together at that time. Robert had 
not told anything until I got to talking to him. I 
don’t reckon he had. It was the first time he told 
me. Julius was past 11 years old. I asked Robert 
if he had told anyone else that he committed this 
crime and he said, “ I told A. P. but he had noth­
ing to do with it because he told me I had done 
a mighty bad thing.” He told him that night going 
home. He stayed all night with him. He said A. 
P. said he had done a mighty bad thing. That was 
the first information I had that anybody knew it. 
I was not there when they found the rubber boots.

CROSS EXAMINATION; page 331:

When they found the little boy’s body I gave 
it a thorough examination. I took his clothes off. 
I found a blue sp.ot along under the ear on the 
right side. I am not positive which side. It was 
just a blue spot. Don’t know how long it had been 
there. People were coming in and going out of 
my store all afternoon. We were not very busy 
that day, just after Christmas. I did not hear any 
noise down there; any hollering or any crying, no 
commotion and no noise at all. The garage is about 
ten steps across the road. It is not very much closer

— 31—



to the place. Mr. George Smith was working 
around the garage that afternoon. People were 
traveling the highway. I did not see the school 
children pass there. I did not see or hear any 
school children. There were some people camped 
between the church and the school building. They 
were traders tkat have been coming in there every 
year. They stayed there a week or ten days or 
two weeks after this occurred. Robert Bell had 
been in the store that afternoon. I don’t remember 
how many times I saw him. He had been staying 
around the store something like four years. He 
helped around the store. I don’t know when I first 
saw him that afternoon. My brother went over 
after freight about twelve o’clock and I judge it 
was about 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock when he got back. 
It was between dinner and supper time. When I 
testified before I may have said it was between 
3:00 and 3:30. I did not say exactly. A. P. Camp­
bell was also around the store. He is not a boy 
nor an old man, A. P. Campbell, my boy, Grady 
Swain, Robert Bell and Red Davis were there a 
part of the time. Robert Bell had played with my 
boy the last three or four years in and around the 
house. He had been around with the children. He 
and my little boy had ridden his horse up and 
down the road time after time. I did not give 
Julius (my son) any money that day. I did not keep

— 32



a record of the cash sales and did not miss any 
money out of the cash drawer. Julius went to 
school when it was in session. He was a pretty 
strong boy for his age and a pretty good boy. He 
was active and a little athlete. He could do most 
any kind of work. I helped undress him. I tried 
to get his clothes off as quick as I could. I did not 
notice whether his clothes were torn. I cannot 
say whether his pockets were turned wrong side 
out or not. Mrs. McCullom was at the store that 
afternoon. She had brought me my dinner. She 
left and went home when my brother got back with 
the freight. I don’t think she stayed very long af­
ter he came back. I won’t be positive. Julius 
was in there at the time talking to my wife and I 
told him to wash his face. That was the last thing 
I said to him. She was with him then and I thought 
he went off with her. She left and went home and 
Julius passed out of the store immediately after 
she left. I don’t know how long he was in the store 
after she was. I missed him and I thought he went 
home with her. I was inside and he may have been 
in front. I did not see him any more after he went 
out of the store until that night. I don’t know what 
occurred from the time he left the store about the 
time his mother did until that time. I did not 
notice Robert Bell in the store about the time my 
wife was. It was before that I reckon, something

— 33—



like thirty minutes. I know he was not inside the 
store and I did not see Grady. I did not see A. P. 
Campbell at that time. They were gone out after 
she left. I don’t know, they were out of the store 
fifteen or twenty minutes before my wife left. 
The next recollection I have of seeing Robert Bell 
(defendant) he came back in the store in an hour 
or more after I missed him out of the store and 
went to the candy show-case and got some candy 
from my brother. I don’t know whether A. P. 
Campbell came in about the same time and got a 
sandwich. It was before I think. A. P. and Grady 
bought a sandwich before they were missed out of 
the store about one o’clock I think. From about 
the time my wife went home up to the time the de­
fendant came back into the store I don’t know 
where Robert Bell was. I did not see how my wife 
went home. She just waked out the front door. I 
live about a quarter of a mile across the edge of 
one hundred and sixty acres. Angling across if 
might have been over a quarter of a mile. I don’t 
know when Robert Bell went to the house. When 
I missed the boy it was getting dusky dark and I 
told him to go up to the house and get him (Julius). 
I thought he was at the house with his mother. 
Robert had just come into the store. I noticed him 
when he came in and went up to the candy show­
case. I did not pay any attention to his clothes and

— 34—



I do not know whether he made a track on the floor 
or not. Saw nothing out of the way with his ac­
tions. I just told him to go home and tell Julius
to come down. It was getting late. I don’t know 
whether he took my little boy Holbert or not. He 
might have. I don’t know how long he had been 
to the store when I sent him to the house. Nor do 
I know how long he had been there before he came 
back and got the coal oil. I did not see him draw 
the oil. He went to my house and came back and 
reported that Julius was not at home. It was dark. 
I got a flash light out to go down to the bayou 
where I knew he had been going to set out some 
traps, to see if I could find any trace. I called him 
some and then I went down to the bayou, and took 
the flashlight. If I testified before that I called 
Julius and then it was an hour before I got my 
flashlight, I won’t dispute it. My idea was that 
Julius crossed the bayou to set his traps and when 
I got down to the bank and found the boat and it 
was pulled up on the bank I was well reconciled 
that he had not crossed the bayou. I testified be­
fore that I was afraid Julius might have drowned 
after my brother went down there and came back 
and told me it looked like something had happened 
on that boat. When I picked up the leather boot 
under the counter a nickle fell out. That was when 
I came back from Little Rock after he told about

— 35



the boots. I never gave Julius any money except 
to go to school on like any father would give chil­
dren. I gave him something like a half dolar or 
a dollar sometimes to buy the children things. 
That was as much as I ever gave him, to buy lunch, 
etc., at school. Julius and Robert Bell and Little 
Holbert had been accustomed to riding the horse. 
Robert had been riding around there with my chil­
dren. He had been around the store for four years. 
You could stand in the door of my store and see the 
location where Julius was drowned, but not the 
spot. Robert Bell was in the store several times 
that afternoon. He was in and out that afternoon 
and he left a little before my wife and was back 
in there possibly twice that afternoon. I don’t 
know what time he went to my wife’s house. 
I don’t know when he left, whether he went 
home with her or not. He made two trips 
that afternoon, the first time when he came 
back and got the coal oil. I believe he came 
back for the coal oil and reported that Julius was 
not at home. I sent him home the first time after 
he got the stick of candy and went out and came 
back in and the boy was missed and I sent him 
home to see about Julius. After he came back 
for the coal oil was when I missed Julius. I don’t 
know when he went home and took my little boy 
behind him. It was getting late when I sent him

— 36—



home to see if Julius was there. I testified before 
as follows:

“ Q. Did Julius leave about the same time this 
defendant got up to go to your house with the 
little boy? A. Julius left before that. Q. What 
time? A. About 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock. Q. Julius 
left your store about 3:30? A. Three-thirty or four 
o’clock. Q. When Julius was there where was this 
defendant? A. I did not see him. Q. Did you 
see him from 3 :30 or 4 :00 o’clock up until the time 
he went down to your wife’s house? A. Not until 
he came back to the store and got some candy. He 
went up to the house. I sent him there to tell my 
little boy to come back to the store. Q. When did 
he come in and buy some candy? A. I think it was 
about 4:30 or 5:00 o’clock. Q. You say Julius 
left about 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock and this boy was 
back at the store to buy candy about 4 o’clock or 
5 o’clock. Where was he in the meantime? A. I 
don’t know.”

The witness states that he testified to these 
facts before and that he is now testifying to them.

It was eight or nine days from the time my lit­
tle boy’s body was found until the body of Elbert 
Thomas was found. Robert Bell was kept in jail 
at Forrest City during that time. I did not talk to 
him in jail at Forrest City. I and Mr. Campbell

— 37—



talked to him in the penitentiary. It was not very 
many days after we found Elbert Thomas’ body un­
til I talked to him. I went over to see him. My 
recollection is that it was on Sunday. Mr. J. M. 
Campbell, the Sheriff of St. Francis County, was 
with me. We had dinner in Little Rock and went 
out to the walls about two o’clock. Robert was 
in the big room when I talked to him. Mr. Tod- 
hunter turned us in. A trusty turned us inside the 
stockade. I don’t know when this was. It was 
not long after they found Elbert’s body. The next 
time I was in Little Rock was the Sunday follow­
ing that Sunday, maybe two weeks. I saw Robert 
Bell whipped there one time by Mr. Todhunter up 
in the stockade. He was lying on the concrete floor 
with his face down. Mr. Todhunter gave it to him 
pretty heavy. He did not beat him unmercifully. 
He did not have anything on but a pair of overalls 
and shoes. I don’t remember about his jumper. 
This was the only time I saw him whipped. I don’t 
know whether I went back. I made three trips 
over there, I think. I don’t know when I saw him the 
next time. He did not whip him the next time. Mr. 
Campbell was with me. I don’t know why they 
did not whip him that time. The first time they 
whipped him was when he told us about how he 
committed the crime. He told me where the money 
was and I went back for it and I started to call Mr.

— 38—



Todhunter up and I thought I had better go see him. 
I could not make him understand that I had not 
found the money and maybe he would confess so I 
could find it. I went back again and he began 
telling me another place and before he got through 
that he told another place. Mr. Todhunter says: 
“ You keep lying about where this money was put. 
I am going to whip you” and he whipped him. He 
said “ I will tell it now,”  and he got up and I said, 
“ Be sure and tell me the facts, if I come back any 
more you will get another whipping and I don’t 
want to see you beat up any more.” I wanted to 
find the money, not so much for the value of it, I 
wanted to see where it was. I went back that time 
and did not find it again and the next time I went 
back he told us another place, it was a new place. 
He said, “ That is the facts.”  I said, “ I believe he 
is telling the truth, let me go back this time and 
see.”  I went back that time and did not find it and 
got so disgusted with his lies that I did not go back 
any more. I then wrote Mr. Todhunter that I did 
not find ft. I saw him whipped, you might say 
two whippings together. He whipped him one 
time and he told me one place and before he got 
through with that he told another and they whip­
ped him again and he then said, “ I will tell you 
now.” I think this was on the second trip to the 
penitentiary. I don’t know how long he had been 
there.

— 39—



DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, Tr. 358:

RANSOM McCTJLLOM:

I was at my brother’s store the day Julius was 
drowned. We did not give Julius any money. 
We did not keep any records at the store. We had 
a box in the store that had money in it. He had 
access to this box.

GRADY SWAIN, Tr. 364:

I knew Julius McCuIlom. I remember when 
he was drowned. It was on December 29, 1927. 
I was living on the Collier place. I know where 
Mr. McCullom’s store is. I lived at home with my 
mother and father. We had not been living there 
quite a year. My father’s home was about a mile 
and a quarter from the store. I had been seeing 
Julius McCuIlom around there during that time. 
Julius lived about two miles from my father’s. I 
am jointly charged with Bell for drowning that little 
boy. The day he was drowned I was at home. I 
left home about twelve o’clock. I am guessing at 
the time. I heard Mr. George C. Brown’s bell ring. 
I ate dinner about the time the bell rang. My 
mother, father and brother were at home. My 
brother’s name is Garvin. He is twelve years old. 
I am fifteen years old. Was fifteen on the second 
day of August. In August, 1927, I was fourteen. I 
have grown a lot since the little McCuIlom boy was

— 40—



drowned. I have been at the walls with Mr. Tod- 
hunter at the penitentiary. On that day after the 
bell rang and after I had had dinner I left home. 
I went to the store but stopped on the way. I left 
home for some turpentine for mother. I had a dime 
when I left home. On the way up there I met Mr. 
Joe Cox and them when I was going up there. I 
got to the store about one o’clock. On my way I 
stopped and took a white lady’s groceries down to 
a camp. Milk and flour and meal. They were 
camped over on the school yard. I delivered the 
groceries and then came back to the store. I got 
some turpentine from Mr. McCullom and stayed 
there about four or five minutes and started on my 
way home. I am guessing at the time. I was there 
only a short while. At the store I saw Mrs. McCul­
lom and Mr. McCullom and Mr. McCullom’s oldest 
brother, I did not see Julius. I saw several 
other people but I did not know their names. 
After being there a while I went back home and 
got there about three o’clock. I stopped by Mr. 
Johnny Payne’s house and stayed a while and saw 
Mrs. Mary Payne and Mr. Johnny Payne. They live 
nowhere from our house. It was calling distance. 
Their house was between our house and the store. 
When I left there I went home and got home about 
three o’clock. I am guessing at the time. I stayed 
home all that afternoon. I did not leave home af-

— 41—



ter three o’clock for any cause. I left home the 
next morning. I had not heard anything that even­
ing until that night Mr. Ransom McCullom came 
down and asked me had I seen Julius and Elbert 
and I told him, “ No sir, I hadn,’t seem them.”' 
I was at home in bed. Me and my mother and 
father and Mr. Johnny Payne and Mary Payne. 
They were all there when Mr. McCullom came. He 
came to the back of the house. He asked me had 
I seen Julius and Elbert and I told him, “ No 
sir.”  He said, “ Well, he run off.”  I learned 
for the first time that Julius was drowned when my 
father came back and told me. He said Mr. Mc­
Cullom said let me come down there and see did 
I know anything about it. That was in the morn­
ing after he was drowned in the evening. This was 
the first time I had heard of it. My father was up 
at the store and they told him. He came back 
home and I learned from my father that the boy 
had drowned. They wanted him to bring me up 
to the store. I went up with my father. On the 
way, between Mr. Press Jackson’s and the corner 
down there he picked me up from my father. My 
father told him there I was and he picked me up 
and went down the road a little piece and turned 
around and went on to Chatfield after Robert. 
They got Robert Bell at Chatfield. They brought 
us back down to the inquest. They were ques-

— 42—



tioning me. They asked questions. Then they took 
us to jail in Forrest City. They took Robert Bell 
and his father to jail. I was at the State walls 
when they put in A. P. Campbell. This one-eyed 
Thomas had a brother. They had him in jail 
when I came from Brinkley. The first time I was 
in jail at Forrest City I stayed until twelve o’clock 
that night. Robert Bell was in jail with me. After 
they put me in jail that night Mr. Campbell got 
there and questioned me. Mr. John I. Jones was 
out there and his son, Mr. Joseph, and another 
man, I don’t know his name. They questioned me 
and they left me over to Mr. John I. Jones, and 
Mr. Campbell came in and questioned me and I told 
them that I did not know anything about it and 
they put me back in jail. I was out there in the 
little concrete room and he came back and got me 
again and asked me did I know anything about it 
and I told him, “No sir.”  And he said that I knew 
something about it and I told him. “ No sir, I didn’t 
know anything about it.” He went to the little 
door and called Mr. Charley Henry to hand him a 
strap. It was three hame strings buckled together. 
Charley Henry was another man in jail, a white 
man and he told him to hand him the strap out there 
and that I was out there to tell him something. It 
wasn’t so that he wanted me to tell him the truth. 
I told him that I did not know anything about it.



He made me lay down and he hit me about fifteen 
licks and made me say I saw Elbert Thomas drown 
this boy at first. He hit me fifteen licks or more. He 
whipped me and made me say I saw Elbert Thomas 
drown the little McCullom boy. He wanted me to 
say that. He hit me about fifteen licks with buckle 
and straps to both of them. There was three 
straps, or hamestrings buckled together and Charley 
Henry handed them out. He was where he could 
see what was going on. Robert Bell seen me whip­
ped. Mr. John I. Jones and Mr. Campbell were 
the only two out there when he whipped me the 
first time. That was the only time he whipped 
me that night. I was then taken to the Brinkley 
jail. They left Robert Bell in jail at Forrest City. 
They carried me there on the 30th, and they 
brought me away on Monday. That was the day 
after the Tittle boy was drowned. They brought me 
back to the Forrest City jail and whipped me again 
when I got back. He whipped me because he 
wanted me to say that Elbert and me pulled off the 
white boy’s boots and I did not know anything 
about it and I told him that he whipped me the first 
time and made me tell a story and he said, “ Yes, 
and I am going to whip you again until you say you 
are guilty.”  He made me come over it and made 
me say that I had seen Elbert when he took fifteen 
dollars and a nickle off of the boy and throwed

44



him in the bayou and throwed off a sock in one 
end of the creek and a sock down in another end 
of the creek. After he made me say that and got 
through whipping me he put me back in jail. The 
next morning they took me over to Little Rock and 
turned me over to Mr. Toddhunter. I stayed there 
about ten days before Mr. Campbell came back and 
got me. On Monday morning they brought me 
back from Brinkley to Forrest City and I stayed just 
one night. Then they took me to the walls. I stayed 
there about two days when Mr. Campbell came over 
and got me. He told me he wanted me to carry them 
to where the money was and when I got half way I 
told them I did not know anything about it. He 
said he was going to carry me back but he wanted 
me to give him the money. He whipped me and 
made me say where the money was. Robert Bell 
was in jail both times when I got whipped. I told 
them in the jail at Forrest City about the money. 
Mr. Campbell whipped me and made me tell it. 
I told him the money was in a big tree on Mr. 
Collier’s place. On the way to Forrest City Mr. 
Campbell got a telegram on the train and it said 
they had found the one-eyed negro in the bayou 
and said bring them on and let’s lynch them. He 
said that was on the telegram. We stopped and 
got off of the train and he took me back to the 
walls. He just went in and told Capt. Toddhunter

— 45—



that he had a negro out there who would not tell 
the truth and he had hooked him up on a lot of 
stories and things and he wanted him to work him 
over so he would tell the truth. Bell was not there 
then. They brought him over that same night. 
They had me locked in the stockade. They put 
Bell in a cell. We were not together at first. The 
first time we were together was the first time they 
made us make our first statement. Bell had been 
there about a week. I seen them whip Bell twice 
and I heard him getting a whipping. He was hol­
lering and I heard the leather sound. Bell had 
been there about a week before he got his first 
whipping. I was out under a tree in the yard. 
They had him in the stockade. I was a good ways 
from him, but they didn’t let me go down and see 
him but I was close enough to hear. I did not 
know what; they were doing to him except from 
the sound. The next time I saw them whip him 
twice on Sunday. When I heard them whipping 
him Mr. McCuIlom and Mr. Toddhunter were there 
and the Sheriff. It looked like they was not going 
to stop whipping him and he (the sheriff) went 
over. They talked to him that Sunday evening. 
Bell was there when they questioned me. This 
was after they first whipped Bell. This was the 
second time that Bell was whipped. I saw him 
whipped both times. The first time I was present

— 46—



he was whipped about the money that they had 
made him confess. He had already been whipped 
once and they were whipping him now to make him 
tell where the money was and Robert told him he 
didn’t know at first and when he whipped him he 
whipped him so hard that he would not lay down 
so they called me to sit on his head. I sat on his 
head while they whipped him. Mr. McCullom, Mr. 
Toddhunter and Mr. Sheriff Campbell were all 
present when I was sitting on his head and while 
Mr. Toddhunter was doing the whipping with a 
bull hide of the penitentiary. After they whipped 
Robert, Robert told them that he rolled over a log 
and put it (the money) under the log and he said 
we will look under the log and if it ain’t there 
we will whip him again. When this occurred 
Robert had been in the penitentiary about two 
weeks. This all occurred before they took the first 
statements. Mr. Toddhunter whipped me when 
they first took the statements and Robert, they did 
not whip him until the other Sunday, until they 
found Elbert. The Sheriff took me down to where 
they said Julius and Elbert were drowned. They 
showed me the boat.

Witness is asked to tell where he was that 
evening at the time of the drowning and he states:

I was not down there at all. I did not see

— 47—



Julius there and did not see Elbert there. I was 
not there at all. The first time I learned that 
Julius was dead was the next morning when my 
father came back. I did not see Robert that day. 
I did not see him until the next morning when Mr. 
McLendon took me where he was. The first time 
I saw him was next morning after they found the 
body and I was under arrest. I did not know Rob­
ert Bell until we got into this trouble. I had seen 
him there but I did not pay him any attention. 
We were not friends. I just knew him in passing. 
I had nothing to do with the drowning at all and 
I ain’t helped put them in the bayou or anything 
and I was not around there at all. I was at home 
at the time they said they got drowned.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

I am fifteen years old and was born in 
1913 on the second day of August. I weighed 120 
pounds at the time of the drowning. I left the store 
about two o’clock that afternoon. I ate dinner when 
the bell was ringing. They were working on the 
29th of December gathering corn. After I ate dinner 
I went up to the store and got some turpentine. I 
left there about two o’clock. I went to the store 
after I carried the white lady’s groceries over to 
the camp. I got the groceries at Mrs. Mary 
Murphy’s. I had seen the white woman there.

— 48—



The white lady had her groceries. She called me 
out of the public highway and asked me would I 
carry her groceries. She lived on the school yard 
where they had a tent. I carried her groceries and 
then walked over to the store and got the turpen­
tine. I live about a mile and a quarter from the 
store. It was about two o’clock when I left. On 
the way to the store the white lady called out to 
me to take her groceries and I went there instead 
of going straight to the store. It must have been 
about 1 :30 when I got to the store and it was about 
two-thirty when I got back down on Mr. Collier’s 
place. I stayed at Johnny Payne’s until about 
three o’clock. I had to pass Johnny Payne’s house 
to get home. The Paynes did not spend the night 
at oqr house. They stayed there about thirty 
minutes. When I got to the store I saw Julius 
when I first got there. I did not see Robert at all. 
Did not see Elbert. I don’t know him. I did not 
see him that day at all. I was not back at the 
store at anytime that afternoon. I got my night 
wood in, pumped water, put it on the porch and 
cut kindling and went back in the house. It was 
about eight o’clock when I went to bed. I got home 
about three o’clock. I got the com and fed the 
hogs and chickens and got in the wood. I had sup­
per about seven o’clock. When I left the store that 
afternoon I could not say whether Julius left about

— 49—



the time I Sid or not and I cannot say about Elbert. 
I did not see either of them. I don’t know where 
they were when I left. I did not go across the pas­
ture in front of Mr. McCullom’s store that after­
noon or that day. I did not see big Henry Flowers. 
I did not see Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas 
out in front of the store and cross that
fence that afternoon. I was not with these 
boys and did not holler back to Henry Flowers. I 
have seen the man that runs the garage up there.
The first thing they did to me at the Forrest
City jail was to beat me that night. They
beat me and made me tell that Elbert had 
drowned the boy. I told Mr. Campbell that 
I did not see it— that I was not there, that I was at 
home and he said, “You are wrong, you have got to 
tell me that you saw that one-eyed negro drown 
this boy.’ Then it was that he told Charley Henry 
to hand him the strap. He said, “ Bring me the 
strap.”  The hamestrings were the only straps 
there. They were tied together. Mr. Campbell 
beat me with the buckles and made me lay down. 
Just because I told him that I did not see Elbert 
drowned him. After he whipped me I told him 
that was true. He did not beat me nearly to death, 
but he put enough on me. The next night 
he whipped me and made me say that Elbert 
pulled off the boy’s boots. When he whip-

— 50



ped me the second time I told him I saw Elbert pull 
off the boy’s boots. He whipped me with the same 
hamesfring. He had all he wanted then and quit 
whipping me. Mr. Campbell made me tell that I 
seen Elbert drown the boy apd he also made me tell 
that I saw him pull his boots off. I saw Julius in 
the store when I went back to buy some turpentine 
and came out. I just seen him passing by. I was 
whipped at the walls when Mr. Campbell 
came over there and told me that Julius had on one 
garter and he made him say that. He made the 
warden whip me. When I got to the penitentiary 
he said: “ I have got a negro I want worked over. 
He is lying to me,” and Mr. Toddhunter said, “ I 
have got something here that will make him tell the 
truth.” He called me in and made me pull off my 
coat right at the gate there and whipped me.

I had to pass Mr. Joe Cox’s house in going to 
the store to my house. I went by Mr. Cox’s house 
before three o’clock that afternoon. I did not come 
along there about dark and Mr. C’ox’s dogs got af­
ter me. When I passed his house he was bringing 
in the first load and wasn’t through moving. They 
quit work that evening to move Mr. Cox. My father 
told me this at the dinner table. I passed his house 
about three o’clock. I told the jury that I did not 
know a thing in the world about that drowning. I 
was not near that drowning. I was at my home a

— 51—



mile and a quarter away. Mr. Campbell beat me 
and made me say what I did about it. I was put 
in the jail in the afternoon and Mr. Campbell whip­
ped me that night. I did not tell anybody but Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Joseph, his son, there in the jail. 
They had questioned me at the inquest. I did not 
see Mr. Campbell until dark. I did not talk to any­
body that afternoon in the Sheriff’s office. I did 
not talk to anybody that afternoon until night. 
Nobody questioned me before night. I did not tell 
these people a thing until they beat me and made 
me do it. I did not say anything. I did not tell Mr. 
Campbell that I saw Elbert do it and when he 
started back from the penitentiary over to Forrest 
City he showed me a telegram and told me that they 
had found the body of Elbert. I did not tell them 
that I throwed Julius out of the side of the boat 
near that old snag. I did not say that until he and 
Captain Toddhunter whipped me. I did not know 
how Julius was dressed. Mr. McCuIlom asked me 
wasn’t there a hole in the boots. Sheriff Campbell 
said he had leather boots and then he whipped me 
off of tHe leather boots on to the gum boots. Mr. 
Campbell said they had found the boots in the wa­
ter. All I know about the boots is what Mr. Camp­
bell said. He said someone had fished them out 
and he told me about it. Over in the penitentiary 
they said he had on leather boots and when they

— 52—



found the gum boots he whipped me and made me 
say they were gum boots. They whipped me when 
I first went there. At the jail house he made me 
say that Elbert Thomas did it and when I got over 
there (penitentiary) he made me change up. He 
whipped me and made me say I was with Robert 
and he whipped Robert and made Robert say he 
was with me. I did tell the jury that I am fifteen 
years old. I will be sixteen the second day of 
August. I did not drown him, did not have any­
thing to do with it. They whipped me two times at 
Forrest City and once in the penitentiary.

CHARLEY HENRY, Tr. 410:

I was in jail at Forrest City on the 30th day of 
December, 1927. Robert Bell and Grady Swain, 
and Robert Bell’s daddy were brought to the jail. 
Will Thomas was put in a little later. Since that 
time I have been convicted and sentenced to the 
farm at Tucker. I passed through the walls when 
these boys were there, but I had no opportunity 
whatever to talk to them. I have been at the farm 
about five months and am a trusty. These boys 
were brought to the jail at Forrest City about three 
o’clock. This boy (Robert Bell) was in there three 
or four hours before Mr. Campbell came. He came 
about seven o’clock. Mr. Campbell first called 
Robert Bell out and talked to him. I did not un-

— 53—



derstand what they were saying and when he put 
the boy back he said, “ you are lying.”  The boy 
said, “ No sir, I am not lying.”  Mr. Campbell said, 
“ We’ll find out if you are lying or not.” He called 
Grady Swain and he was talking to him and he 
opened the door, the little door, and said, “ Give me 
that strap out of there Charley. This negro is lying 
to me and he has got to talk.”  The strap was three 
heavy hamestrings fastened together like they 
swing the cots with in jail. Two double make the 
handle on it and the other one is used for a lash. 
He told him to lay down on the floor and he gave 
him a pretty good thrashing. Bell saw and heard 
all of this. Bell was standing right inside the door 
and he had no chance not to hear it. Bell was 
standing on the inside of the door by me and I was 
looking through and saw all that took place. After 
the whipping was administered he said to Grady, 
“Listen, you are going to tell me. You helped 
drown that boy, if you didn’t do it yourself, didn’t 
you, Grady?” and Grady said, “ No sir.” Mr. 
Campbell said, “ You are lying. Don’t tell me a lie. 
I am going to kill you if you do.”  He (Grady) 
went on and said, “ Yes sir. He helped to do it.”  
There was another man in the jail who was a 
stranger to me. If Mr. John I. Jones was present 
he came in after he pushed the door in my face 
and told me I had no business there. That he could

— 54—



take care of that himself. Sheriff Campbell did 
this. He made me get back. If Mr. Jones was 
there it was after this happened. After I handed 
the strap. They took Grady away about midnight. 
I can’t say where they took him. They said they 
had a log heap built out there and it was on fire 
and they were going to burn him with it and they 
took him away to save him. They brought him 
back lafer, I judge in a couple of days. After 
nearly a half day they called him out at dark and 
whipped him again. They whipped him about the 
same thing, to make him confess to the murder of 
the little McCullom boy. This time they gave him 
about eight or ten licks. Bell saw both of these 
whippings administered to Swain. He was right 
there. I gave the strap to Mr. Joe Campbell. Will 
Thomas was in jail and they called him out there 
and little Joe Campbell and Mr. John I. Jones was 
standing outside of the door in the hallway and 
they told me to throw the strap for them. I whip­
ped the boy in Mr. Joe Campbell’s presence and in 
Bell’s presence. Mr. Joe Campbell is the deputy 
sheriff, son of the sheriff.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

Will Thomas is the one-eyed negro’s brother 
that was drowned. They used these hamestrings 
on me twice, but I have no hard feelings against

— 55—



Sheriff Campbell. Before I came to St. Francis 
County I lived in Louisville, Kentucky. A part of 
the time there I was in the reform school and stay­
ed there until I was parolled out, about two or 
three years. About two years later I came to this 
country. I have been sent to the penitentiary for 
six years. The reason I know Robert Bell saw that 
whipping he was standing right by the side of me. 
Mr. Campbell made him lay down and beat him. 
He made him confess that he made the one-eyed 
negro to kill Julius McCulIom. The second time 
that he whipped Grady Swain was to make him 
confess that he had killed the little boy. Mr. Camp­
bell was not satisfied. I have not talked to either 
of the defendants in the penitentiary. I have been 
in jail with them here. I did not talk to them at 
all. Tr. 427. He (Mr. Campbell) had the negroes 
pretty nearly scared to death. They thought he 
was going to kill them. He made Grady say that 
he helped Elbert do it. He whipped Grady and 
asked him did he pull off the boots of the little Mc- 
Cullom boy and he said, “No sir,”  and he slapped 
him in the face with his hand and told him, “ Don’t 
lie to me, you little black son of a bitch, I will kill 
you if you do.”  Grady said, “ Yes sir, I helped him, 
yes sir, I helped him.”  He asked him about money 
that was taken out of the boots and how much it 
was.

56—



JOHN PAYNE, Tr. 429:

I live on Mr. J. L. Collier’s place. Was living 
there when Julius McCullora was drowned. I 
know where Mr. McCullom’s store is. I know where 
Bob Swain’s house was at that time. My house 
was a little closer to the sbjtx-- I know Grady 
Swain. Have known him about three years. I 
have been seeing him but did not know his name 
until after this happened. I remember the day 
Julius was drowned. I saw Grady Swain that day. 
It was around four o’clock. He came up to my 
house. He was going towards home. He stopped 
out at the wood pile where I was cutting wood. 
He stayed something like ten or fifteen minutes I 
reckon. I am guessing at the time. It was in the 
afternoon and I think around four o’clock. After 
he left my house he went right around the head of 
the bayou and came back to the road and went 
home. I did not see him on his wray while he was 
going home. That night I did see him. I did not 
see him any more that afternoon. I did not leave 
home until that night. Me and my wife walked 
down to Bob Swain’s house that night. It is only a 
short distance, about one hundred yards. When 
we got down there Grady Swain’s mother and two 
boys were there. His father had gone up to the 
store and he came back later. The other boy’s 
name is Garvin Swain. We stayed there something

— 57'



like an hour. I was there when their father came 
in and when I left their home Grady was still there. 
While I was there Mr. Ransom McCullom came 
there. He called the boy and asked him had he 
seen Julius and the boy told him, “ Yes sir.”  Then 
he asked him where he had seen him and he said 
was out in the road when he saw him. He did not 
tell him what time it was.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

It is a little bit better than a mile from my 
house to the McCullom store. I saw Grady pass 
about four o’clock. He stopped there and talked 
a while. He did not have any business with me, he 
just came there and was talking to me and I was 
cutting wood. He sat down on the wood pile. It 
was about four o’clock. He left and said he was 
going home and get in his kindling and wood. In 
the trial before I testified it was between 3 :30 or 
near 4 :00 o’clock and that it was a cloudy evening. 
There was nothing unusual about the boy stopping 
and talking to me.

MARY PAYNE, Tr. 437:

I am the wife of John Payne. I live on Mr. 
J. R. Collier’s place. I remember the day Mr. Mc- 
Cullom’s boy, Julius, was drowned. I was at home. 
I know Grady Swain and I saw him that afternoon 
and he came through my yard and stopped at the

— 58—



wood pile. He was going towards the store. He 
was right at my house when I first saw him coming 
towards his home and mine too. I could not say 
what time it was for sure. It was in the afternoon 
as near as I can get at it, about four o’clock. My 
husband was at the wood pile cutting wood. Don’t 
know how long he stopped. Did not pay any atten­
tion. I was seeing about supper. After he left the 
wood pile I looked out the kitchen window and 
saw him going home. The next time I saw him was 
that night, we went to his house, me and my hus­
band. His mother and little brother were there. 
We made them a visit and came back home. His 
father came in after we got to his house. I do not 
know where his father had been.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

It was after dark when we went down that 
night. I could not tell what time it was when Mr. 
McCullom came down there. He called, “ Hello,” 
and asked for Grady Swain and Grady said, “ Yes 
sir,”  and he asked Grady had he seen Julius Mc­
Cullom and Grady said, “ Yes sir,” and he said, 
“ Where did you see him?” and he said he saw him 
at the store and he said, “ Where was he at?” and 
Grady said he was over in the road, the big road. 
I don’t remember his saying what time it was. 
When I went to the door he was going towards his

— 59—



home from down towards the store. I did not see 
anything in his hands. I just seen him and when 
I looked out the window he was going towards his 
home. I am not related to either of the defendants.

BOB SWAIN, Tr. 445:

My name is Bob Swain. I am the father of 
Grady Swain. I remember when Mr. McCullom’s 
little boy was drowned near his store in the bayou. 
It was in December, on the 29th. I was living with 
Mr. Russell Collier about a mile and a quarter from 
Mr. McCullom’s store. John Payne and his wife 
live between me and the store. I was at home cut­
ting stalks all day until about four o’clock. About 
that time I went up to Mr. McCullom’s store. I met 
Grady Swain right at the back of Mr. Collier’s lot 
going towards home and I went on to the store and 
when I met him I told him to go home. I went on 
towards the store and he went on towards home. 
I did not see him any more until I got home that 
night, just about dark when I left the store and I 
came down the road a piece in a truck and walked 
about a quarter of a mile. When I got back home 
I found John Payne and Mary Payne, Grady and 
my wife and Garvin, my other boy. Garvin is 
twelve years old. Grady is fifteen years old now. 
He was not but fourteen then. Next August he will 
be sixteen. I left home around four o’clock. It is a 
mile and a quarter to the store and I stopped at

— 60—



Mr. Collier’s lot and talked to Marion Thomas a 
little while. We were talking when I met the boy. 
I said at the time I quit cutting stalks it was about 
four o’clock, but it seemed to me it was that time. 
The sun was not down. I met my boy on the bridge 
back of Mr. Collier’s lot. This was nearer to my 
home than it was to the store. That bridge ain’t 
nowhere from home. When I took out the sun was 
not dowrn. I took my mules out and took the 
harness off of them and put the mules in the stable. 
I did not feed them. It was not time to feed them. 
Marion Thomas and me left my house going that 
way. We stopped and talked at Mr. Collier’s lot. 
He was going there to take his team and I was go­
ing to take mine and come on to the store.

NANCY SWAIN, Tr. 452:

My name is Nancy Swain. I am the wife of 
Bob Swain and the mother of Grady Swain. At the 
time Julius McCullom was drowned I was staying 
on Mr. Russell Collier’s place. I had not been long 
moved off of Mr. Jim Cranor’s. As near as I can 
get at it we had been there about two or three 
weeks. I remember the day Mr. McCullom’s boy 
was drowned in the bayou. I reckon my house is 
about two miles from Mr. McCullom’s store. 
Grady was at home all day that day until I sent 
him to the store. As near as I can get at it it was 
about half after two when he left. I could not say

— 61—



exactly what time we had dinner. He ate his din­
ner and sawed some wood on the bayou for his 
daddy to haul and I told him I wanted him to go to 
the store for me after some turpentine. He brought 
the turpentine back about four o’clock in the even­
ing. The sun wasn’t down. He did not 
leave my home any more that evening. He was 
around the house all of the time. He sawed wood 
and got in night wood and fed his hogs and the 
chickens. My husband met him on the way from 
the store. He got back too about dark. When he 
came back Johnny and Mary Payne was at my 
house. They stayed there pretty late that night. 
I don’t know exactly what time. My boy Grady 
did not leave the house from the time he got back 
from the store until after Johnny and Mary Payne 
left. He did not leave the house that night at all. 
The next time he left home was when my husband 
came back next morning from the store and got 
him. We heard about the little boy drowning after 
Mr. Ransom came down there. I did not even 
know when he was drowned. I heard it the next 
morning. That was when they sent after my little 
boy.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

As near as I can get at it Grady left home 
about 2 :30 to go for the turpentine and he got back 
about four o clock. I generally hear Mr. Brown’s

— 62—



bell every day it rings. I did not pay any attention 
to it that day. We don’t have our dinner on short 
days as early as twelve o’clock. Grady and his 
brother sawed some wood after dinner before he 
went to the store. My husband left to go to the 
store about four o’clock when he came out of the 
field. He took out a little before sundown.

ROBERT BELL, Tr. 460:

My name is Robert Bell. I am charged with 
helping drown Julius McCullom on the 29th of 
December, 1927. I live at Democrat where Mr. 
McCullom’s store is. I worked for Mr. McCullom 
part of the time and made my home with my uncle. 
My mother is dead and I don’t know where my 
father is. I haven’t seen him since he was turned 
out of jail. They took me to jail at the same time 
they did him. I remember the day it is said Julius 
McCullom was drowned in the bayou. I had been 
down at Mr. McCullom’s store. I was around there 
all day. There was a whole gang around there. 
Mrs. McCullom and Mr. Mac’s brother was there. 
Mr. B. McCullom owned the store and he was sick 
but he was at the store. Julius was running around 
the store and riding my horse. I used the horse 
for carrying mail. Had been carrying the mail 
about a half year from Chatfield to Democrat. I 
carried the mail just from one place to another. 
It was a star route. Mr. McCullom had six chil-

— 63—



dren. Julius was the oldest and Holbert was next. 
All of the children were at the store that day. I 
left the store that afternoon about five o’clock. I ' 
had been riding up and down the road with the 
children on my horse. The last time I saw Julius 
was after I left the store and went down to Mrs. 
Lena’s house. I don’t know what time exactly, 
about four or five o’clock. Up to that time I had 
been riding up and down the road with the children. 
When I went to Mr. McCullom’s house I left Julius 
at the store and that was the last time I saw him 
that afternoon. When I got down to Mr. Ransom’s 
I hitched the horse and went in to see if there was 
anything for me to do and she said she would find 
something. She fixed up the churn and told me to 
churn. I started to churn and the milk was cold 
and the butter would not come. She went to fill up 
the lamps and found she was out of coal oil and 
she asked me to go to the store and get some coal 
oil. I went to the store on my horse for the coal 
oil. When I started back out Mr. McCullom asked 
me to go back and ask Mrs. Lena had she seen 
anything of Julius. I went and took Holbert with 
me. I went down there and Julius was not at home.
I came back and told Mr. Mac. That was the first 
time they got uneasy about him. I went back after 
the coal oil and stayed down there until she told 
me to take Holbert back to the store and help Mr.

— 64



Mac and I stayed there until after they found Julius’ 
body. I was riding my horse up and down the road 
hunting for him when they found his body. When 
I got to Willie Thomas’ house he got on the horse 
with me. He is the brother of Elbert Thomas that 
got drowned. He is the one that testified about 
helping get some of Julius’ money. I heard what 
he said and it is not true. I did not have any con­
versation of that character with him. I did not 
know Julius had any money. Julius and all the 
family were good friends of mine. They had been 
good to me for several years. I have been aroundr
there ever since I have been here, about four or 
five years. They took, care of me and have been 
good to me and kind to me and helped me in every 
way possible and I thought lots of the children. I 
thought Julius and the little folks were the finest 
children I ever seen. I cared as much about them 
children like I did some of my own folks. I have 
never had any trouble with them in my life and 
never mistreated any of them. I never was ugly 
to Mr. and Mrs. McCullom. No one told me to go 
up and ask Mrs. McCullom if I could do anything 
for her. I have been doing that all of the time. 
All of the time I was living there. I left there that 
night with A. P. Campbell and took him on behind 
my horse. I had a conversation with A. P. Camp­
bell about finding Julius’ body. They had accused

— 65—



Elbert Thomas of drowning Julius. We could not 
find out. They thought Elbert drowned him and 
they were hunting for Elbert. In going up to 
Campbell’s house we talked about this matter and 
I said they thought Elbert had drowned the boy 
and I told A. P. Campbell that whoever done that 
had done a mighty bad thing and that was all I 
said. I heard A. P. Campbell state that I told him 
that I and Elbert Thomas drowned this boy, but 
that is not so. I did not say anything of that kind 
to Campbell. They had Campbell in jail. They 
took him out before they did me and I don’t know 
how long he was in jail. They had Willie Thomas 
in jail. They had A. P. Campbell in jail before 
they did Willie and then they brought Willie. They 
were arresting everybody they could get hold of. 
They took my father and put him in jail. They 
took me before the Coroner’s inquest and I told 
them all I knew about it and after that they took 
me to jail. I did not have anything at all to do 
with the drowning of Julius McCullom. I was not 
down at the bayou that afternoon. Willie Thomas 
said that I had lost $10.00 in a crap game. There 
was not a crap game at his house that night. I had 
no money except a nickle. I got it from Mr. A. C. 
Pittman’s boy at Chatfield. I got a stick of candy 
at the store that afternoon, but I did not divide it 
with Grady. I divided it with Willie Thomas and

— 66—



Willie Thomas was the one that told that I divided 
it with Grady. Grady Swain and I were not close 
friends. We just spoke every time I met him and 
that was all. I was not at the bayou that after­
noon. I did not know Julius had been drowned at 
the bayou. I did not know where his traps were 
set out. Elbert Thomas must have went with him 
but I didn’t know. I was arrested at C'hatfield. 
They had Grady in the car when they picked me 
up. I sent my brother to Chatfield after my horse 
and they took me and Grady to jail. They also took 
my Father. They kept my Father in jail until New 
Year’s day and turned him out. I have not seen 
him since and don’t know where he is. We got to 
the Forrest City jail about three o’clock. I was put 
in a cell. I was there about an hour when they 
come in and talked to me. Mr. Sheriff Campbell 
came about 7:30. Charlie Henry was in jail when 
I got there. After Sheriff Campbell came he called 
me out and pushed me around and asked me did I 
know anything about it and I told him, “ No sir,” 
and he told me that he believed I did not know any­
thing about it and then he put me back in jail and 
he called Grady out. He talked to Grady. I 
could not understand every word. I heard Mr. 
Campbell tell Grady that he was lying to him. He 
kept on after him and then he put him back in 
jail, and after he kept on at him and he couldn’t

— 67—



get him to tell anything and he came back and got 
him and talked to him outside and then Grady would 
not tell anything and he went to the door and asked 
Mr. Charlie to hand the strap out and he handed 
him the strap and he, Mr. Campbell, whipped 
Grady and he whipped him very hard and after he 
whipped Grady, Grady told him he and Elbert 
Thomas drowned him. I was looking at him when 
he whipped Grady. Then he took him to Brinkley 
or somewhere. They brought him back the next 
day. I think it was the next day. They put him 
in jail and let him eat his supper and took him out 
and questioned him again. Sheriff Campbell whip­
ped him. He was trying to make him tell the same 
thing again. I could not understand everything 
exactly on account of I was behind an iron door. 
I could not see the whipping that was going on, 
but I could hear it. They put him in jail and let 
him stay all night and locked him up in one of the 
little cells. They did not put him in with me. The 
next morning they said they were going to take him 
to Little Rock. I don’t know where they took 
him. In about a week they took me to Little Rock. 
They did not put me with Grady. They put me up 
stairs in the women’s cell and Grady was in the 
stockade. I did not see him and don’t know where 
he was. We were kept separate. The first time Mr. 
Todhunter worked on me, him and Mr. Mack and Mr.

— 68



Campbell were there. They whipped me and tried to 
make me tell a confession. They whipped me 
about an half hour or something like that. He kept 
after me to tell what I had done. That was on 
Sunday and Mr. McCullom was present and Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Todhunter. I had never up to 
that time admitted that I had done it or had any­
thing to do with it. I had never confessed to any­
thing. They worked on me again the next Sunday 
up in the stockade. Sheriff Campbell was there 
when I was whipped the next Sunday and I think 
Mr. McCullom, Mr. Walter Harrison and Grady. 
Grady was there this time. They took me in and 
tried to get me to say I did it and I would not do it 
and they whipped me again. That second Sunday 
they whipped me twice. I was lying flat down on 
my belly as flat as I could get on the floor. I had 
on a pair of white pants and a piece of a blue shirt. 
They whipped me from my head on down to my 
heels. I tried to turn a little bit and they told me 
to be still. They tried to get me to tell this and 
I would not do it and Captain Todhunter saw I 
wasn’t going to tell it and they whipped me again. 
This was on the second Sunday and Grady was 
present. They whipped me twice the second Sun­
day. Captain Todhunter did the whipping. He 
whipped me about a half hour. In about fifteen 
minutes they gave me the second whipping. He

69—



whipped me then to make me tell where the money 
was. I was laying down flat on the floor. I had 
my head laying down sidewise. Grady Swain was 
sitting on my head holding me down. After these 
whippings were given me I told them, yes sir, to 
everything they asked me. That is the way he had 
been questioning me all along and when he got 
through whipping I said, “ Yes sir,”  to everything 
he asked me. I was scared he was going to whip 
me again. After this he took the strap and wrap­
ped it around his hand and put it under his arm and 
walked down stairs. I had a knot on my head the 
size of a common hen egg. It was where Mr. Tod- 
hunter hit me with a lock. That was the second 
Sunday and the last time he whipped me. I know 
the things Mr. Campbell and Mr. McCullom said I 
admitted to in jail. This was all said after I was 
whipped in the walls of the penitentiary. I had 
been whipped three different times and on two dif­
ferent occasions. The confessions I made to Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. McCullom in Mr. Todhunter’s 
presence was after I had been whipped and I would 
say whatever Captain Todhunter would make me 
say. I did not want to get any more whippings. I 
had nothing to do with the murder of Julius Mc­
Cullom. I did not have anything to do with drown­
ing him or putting him in the bayou. I was not 
anywhere near there when it occurred. I did not

— 70—



know when it occurred, or how. I don’t know how 
it was done. I did not get a penny off of them and 
did not have anything to do with any money. I 
was nowhere close around.

CROSS EXAMINATION, Tr. 480:

I saw Grady Swain at the store that afternoon. 
I saw him once. He was going down the road with 
a white lady, toting some junk for her. He had a 
jug of milk and something else, I don’t remember. 
I was standing at the store looking through the 
window. I don’t know who was the white woman. 
I was just looking out of the window to see who I 
could see. I was not expecting him to be there. I 
stayed around the store until Mrs. Lena left and 
went home. She had just gotten home good when 
I got there on my horse. I don’t know what time it 
was exactly. Grady Swain had gone on by with the 
white lady. I don’t know whether he came up to 
the store or not. I did not know that he had gone 
to the store and got some turpentine. The only 
time 'I saw him was with the white lady. I left 
the store about fifteen or twenty minutes after Mrs. 
Lena left. It was between five and six o’clock 
when I went after the coal oil. The sun set about 
five o’clock. When I went' up to the house the 
first time I went up there like I generally do. I 
come up there every day, toted water and piddle 
around the house. The people had been awful

— 71—



good to me. I went up there to do what Mrs. Mc- 
Cullom wanted me to do. I offered to
churn and the milk was cold and then she 
asked me to get some coal oil. I churned until 
she looked at 'the milk. I went back to the store 
before I got the coal oil. Mr. McCullom sent me 
back to the house to ask Mrs. Lena if she seen 
anything of Julius. Then I went back and got the 
coal oil. I did not go to Willie Thomas’ house until 
I went to help hunt for the boy. I asked them had 
they seen anything of Julius. I went to the door 
but did not get off of my horse. I did not go into 
Willie Thomas’ house and shoot craps and lose 
$10.00. I was not across the road that afternoon 
at all. I was not over at the old house that after­
noon. I seen Grady when he passed with the bot­
tle of milk. I did not know Grady Swain well. I 
knowed of him. I knew him well enough to know 
him when I saw him. I didn’t see him at the store 
that afternoon. I saw him once that afternoon. I 
saw Elbert Thomas that afternoon. I did not see 
Elbert Thomas, Julius McCullom and Grady Swain 
crossing the little pasture. I did not know that 
Julius McCullom had a habit of carrying money. 
I was never on the porch at the store when Julius 
McCullom got money out of his boots and showed 
it to me. No such thing ever happened. I was 
hunting for Julius when they found his body. I

— 72—



was going around to folks houses and inquiring, had 
they seen him. I was riding up and down the road 
asking everybody had they seen Julius. Willie 
Thomas said to me that if they found his brother 
they were going to kill him. I didn’t know Julius 
was drowned. I was asking in good faith about 
Julius. They had done said down at the store that 
Elbert Had done away with Julius. After I heard 
the hollering I went back to the store to see what 
they were excited about. Little Julius was a great 
friend of mine and I loved him. I stayed around 
there until about eight or nine o’clock and went 
with A. P. Campbell and stayed all night. The 
first night I was in the jail at Forrest City was when 
Grady was whipped and the next night I saw him 
whipped again. They had a strap there but they 
did not whip me. I did not tell anything except 
the time Mr. Todhunter whipped me. All I told 
them was after I was whipped. I told them some­
thing to let me alone. They asked me about every­
thing. I didn’t know anything about how his 
clothes were fastened. I was not there. I did say 
he had on leather boots the last time I saw him. 
What I did say to Mr. Campbell and Mr. McCullom 
was after these whippings had been given to me.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION, Tr. 502:

They whipped me and questioned me. They 
whipped me one Sunday and then they whipped me

— 73



the next Sunday and they whipped me again. The 
next Sunday they whipped me twice. I do not 
know how long they whipped me. He whipped me 
until he got tired. Then he stopped and rested 
about ten or fifteen minutes and started on me 
again. He hit me hard. He was tip-toeing. I had 
two sores on my back. I could feel them but could 
not see them. I don’t know how many licks they 
hit me, I did not count them. When he whipped 
me he would question me some and I said, “ Yes sir,”  
and then he gathered the strap up and went down 
stairs. The time he put me back in the stockade 
was when he hit me with the lock after he whip­
ped me the last time.

GARVIN SWAIN, Tr. 506:

I am almost thirteen years old; Bob Swain is 
my father and Grady Swain is my brother. I lived 
about a mile and a half from Greasy Corner in 
December, 1927, with my mother and father. I 
remember the time Julius McCullom was drowned. 
Mr. McCullom was there trying to make me know 
something about some boots. He poured some gas 
on my feet and carried me around and put me in 
the ice-box and took me down to the lake and tried 
to make me find some boots, but I ran off. It had 
snowed that evening. Mr. Joe Cox and my daddy 
and another man came and got me.

— 74—



STATE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

L. D. PRUETT, Tr. 510:

I live on Mr. George C. Brown’s place about 
three miles this side of Hughes and about a quarter 
of a mile from Mr. McCullom’s store. In 1927 I 
lived with Mr. Black. I knew Julius McCullom and 
I know the defendant, Robert Bell, and have known 
him about three years. I knew Elbert Thomas. I 
knew him about six months. I was hostler for Mr. 
Black when the matter happened. I was on the 
porch of Mr. McCullom’s store with Elbert Thomas 
and Robert Bell on one occasion with Julius Mc­
Cullom. I saw him showing Elbert Thomas some 
money. Elbert was there and they were joking one 
another about money. Julius unlaced his boots a 
piece and showed Elbert some bills. Robert Bell 
was in the presence at the time. Nobody else was 
on the porch. This was about three weeks before 
Julius was drowned. I don’t know how much money 
it was.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

This happened about three weeks before 
Julius was drowned and this is the first time I have 
ever testified in this case. This occurred late in 
the evening near sundown. I don’t know how 
many bills there were. He just laid his boot back 
there. I was about eight feet away. I don’t know

— 75—



how many bills there were, nor the size of the bills, 
whether they were five dollar, one dollar or ten 
dollar bills. Mr. Mack asked me had I seen Julius 
with any money. Julius didn’t tell me where he 
got the money. He did not tell me he had taken it 
out of his father’s cash drawer. I stayed around 
there two months after the drowning occurred and 
didn’t tell this. I did my trading at Chatfield and 
Mr. McCullom’s store and didn’t tell this. I did not 
tell anybody about it until Mr. McCullom asked 
me. I don’t know what day it was I was at the 
store. I was around the store a great deal after 
this thing happened.

JOE COX, Tr. 517:

I know where Bob Swain, the father of Grady 
Swain lived. I was at home on the evening the 
McCullom boy was drowned. I live between Bob 
Swain’s house and the store. I saw Grady Swain 
that evening about 4:30 or five o’clock, first dark. 
I had just moved in there that day and I was in 
the kitchen and the dog commenced to bark and 
somebody was hollering for me and I went to the 
door and he said, “ Don’t let the dog bite me,” and 
I said, “ Go on, he won’t bite you,” and I asked him 
who he was and he said I am Bob Swain’s boy. 
Then I said, “ Go on home, they ain’t going to 
bother you.”

- 76-



C R O S S  E X A M I N A T I O N :

I had just moved there that day. I was in the 
house when I heard the boy holler. I was about 
thirty feet away from him and I have related all of 
the conversation we had. I had been living about 
four miles from there. I wasn’t very well acquaint­
ed around Mr. McCullom’s store.

JOHN I. JONES, Tr. 520:

I live at Forrest City and am Deputy Sheriff. 
I remember when Robert Bell and Grady Swain 
were brought to jail. I questioned them regarding 
where Elbert Thomas was. We had Grady Swain 
and Robert Bell out questioning them, trying to 
find where Elbert Thomas had gone. At that time 
we thought Elbert had killed the McCullom boy, 
and Robert pointed his finger at Grady and said, 
“ You know I saw you and Julius and Elbert leav­
ing the store'together.”

S. L. TODHUNTER, RE-CALLED, Tr. 522:

I did not strike the defendant with a lock 
when I had him in the penitentiary. He had some 
kind of a knot, or a bruise on his head as I remem­
ber and said that a horse or mule had kicked him.

B. McCULLOM, RE-CALLED, Tr. 523:

When I was in the penitentiary with Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Todhunter the defendant was

- 77-



talking about a scar on his head and said that a 
mule had kicked him.

DEFENDANT’S SUR-REBUTTAL

GARVIN SWAIN. Tr. 524:

I knew Mr. Joe Cox and knew him in Decem­
ber, 1^27, the time that Julius McCullom was 
drowned. I left home that evening, or that night, 
and went up to Mrs. Mary Murphy’s after some 
eggs for Mama and passed back by Mr. Cox’s house 
and the dogs barked at me and I hollered at Mr. 
Cox to don’t let them bite me and he said something 
another; I went on and didn’t understand him. I 
was the boy that passed there. I did not tell Mr. 
Cox that my name was Garvin Swain.

— 78—



ARGUMENT
We deem it well at the commencement of this 

presentation to note an epitome of the facts and 
totography of Greasy Corner at the inception of 
the surmised crime by disclosing that Julius Mc­
Cullom, a w’hite boy between eleven and twelve 
years of age, vigorous, robust, weighing between 
70 and 75 pounds, “ Excellent swimmer,”  “ Could do 
most any kind of work,” and, “ Mighty strong for 
his age,” (Tr. 316 and 339) and Elbert Thomas, 
colored, one-eyed, nineteen years of age, tall, strong 
and healthy, and defendant. Robert Bell, cqlored, 
medium stature and weight and in his eighteenth 
year, were at, in, or near a country stlBTH" BTiTTcImg 
with front norch and glass front windows facing 
the south and on the north side of, adjacent to and 
at the juncture of the main 60-foot public highway 
extending east and west from Hughes, Arkansas, 
to Memphis, Tennessee, with the 60-foot public 
highway leading from Forrest City to Greasy Cor­
ner, owned and occupied by Mr. B. McCullom, 
father of Julius McCullom, between 3:30 and 4:00 
o’clock on the afternoon, Thursday, December 29th, 
1927, a bright, sunny and clear day and that Grady 
Swain, colored, small of stature and in his four- 
teenth year was also at i'lie store about 2:30 o’clock

T r-r- »-

ttm  afternoon but departed for and reached his 
home, a distance of 2 i/2 miles, at about 3:30 or

— 79—



4:00 o’clock and remained at home the balance of 
the day feeding his father’s hogs, his mother’s 
chickens, getting wood and doing other chores 
around home for his mother.

A three-strand barbed wire fence was on the 
south sfde of and adjacent to the 60-foot public 
highway extending east and west from Hughes to 
Memphis, separating the highway from the clear, 
open and level pasture.

Directly in front of the store building at a dis­
tance of 140 to 150 yards (Tr. 38 and 331) is what 
is commonly called C'ut-Off Bayou forming a semi­
circle towards the south, the west sector crossing 
the 60-foot highway extending east and west from 
Hughes to Memphis at a distance of 150 yards 
(Tr. 42) and a little south of west of the store 
building, and the east sector crossing the same 
highway, after its confluence with the public high­
way running from Forrest City to Greasy Corner, 
a short distance east of the store building.

There were two bridges on the east and west 
highway, extending from Hughes to Memphis, 
across the bayou, one at the point where the high­
way crosses the bayou at a little south of west of the 
store and one where the highway crosses the bayou 
a short distance east of the store.

A garage facing the south and east is at the

— 80—



juncture of and on the south side of the Forrest 
City-Greasy Corner highway and on the north side 
of the Hughes-Memphis highway at a distance of 
70 or 75 feet west of the store.

An old log house or barn was located about 
100 yards (Tr. 66) due east and in plain view of 
the store and five or six feet south of the Hughes- 
Memphis highway in the open, clear and level pas­
ture. There were no trees, buildings, brushes, 
weeds, undergrowth nor anything between the store 
and the old log house or barn to obstruct the view 
between the barn and store and the same was true 
as to the bayou and bridge west of the store nor 
was there anything to obstruct the view in the way 
of trees, brush, weeds, houses, undergrowth, hills 
or any other thing between the store and the bank 
of the bayou.

A school building used for colored children was 
located on the west bank of the bayou, on south 
side of Hughes-Memphis highway and at the west 
end of the highway bridge which crosses the bayou 
west of the store and horse traders and their 
families were camping on the west bank of bayou 
on school grounds 150 yards of point of drowning 
(Tr. 42 and 143).

Mr. B. McCullom owned 160 acres of land. 
His residence was on the north edge and his store

■81—



on the south edge of this farm (Tr. 342). Going 
from the store to his home you first go east on the 
Hughes-Memphis Highway toward, to, or beyond 
the old house or barn, thence north over a by-road 
(Tr. 310) a distance of more than three-quarters 
of a mile (Tr. 64).

A beaten and well defined path led from the 
south side of the Hughes-Memphis Highway across 
the red clay pasture directly south, and in front of 
the store and across the bayou at the point where 
the 14-16 foot long by 41/2 feet wide boat (Tr. 50) 
was on that date and had been at all times, and 
which was, and had been, used by people crossing 
the bayou.

Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas were ac­
cidentally, or otherwise drowned between 4 :00 and 
5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Thursday, December 
29th, 1927, directly in front, and from 140 to 150 
yards or steps, of the McCullom store (Tr. 38 and 
331), within 80 or 90 yards or steps of the high­
way, about 150 yards of the garage and 150 yards 
of the horse traders and their families.

The garage was nearer to the point of the 
drowning than the store, and there was nothing 
obstructing the view between the garage and point 
of drowning, except the slight bank depression.

The closest approximation of the time of the

— 82—



surmised drowning is deduced from Mrs. Lena Mc- 
Cullom (Tr. 317), Ransom McCullom (Tr. 44, 45, 
150, 151) and B. McCullom (Tr. 349 and 350) all 
of whom gave evidence that Ransom McCullom re­
turned from Hughes about 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock that 
afternoon and upon reaching the store Julius Mc­
Cullom, Elbert Thomas and Robert Bell were in and 
around the store, however none of them paid but 
little if any attention to any of them, noticed noth­
ing suggestive, unnatural or out of the way in their 
looks, actions, conduct or manners, Ransom Mc­
Cullom was inside, in front of and around the store 
waiting on various customers from that time until 
about or just after sundown and B. McCullom be­
ing a little unwell spent a part of balance of the 
evening at the stove and part giving attention to 
various and divers patrons.

Mrs. Lena McCullom, wife of B. McCullom and 
mother of Julius McCullom, was in the store on the 
return-of Ransom McCullom with truck of mer­
chandise, prepared her wraps and those of her two 
young children, left the store with these two chil­
dren to go to her home, met Robert Bell who had 
been in and around the store all that afternoon 
playing with Julius and other boys going into the 
store as she and children passed out, she saw noth­
ing unnatural, unusual or out of way in his actions, 
conduct, looks, demeanor or suggestive of miscon-

— 83—



duct, leaving the store, she and the two children 
proceeded east (Tr. 310) on the Hughes-Memphis 
Highway towards, to or beyond the old log house 
or barn at which point Julius came to her having 
in his arms another of the small children, asking 
that she allow him to take her and three children 
home in the McCullom car which she declined to 
do for some unexplained reason. At this point A. 
H. Davidson appeared on the scene in his car, 
tendered his services to and carried Mrs. McCullom 
and three children home in his car, leaving Julius 
on the highway. This was the last seen of Julius 
alive by his mother. Upon reaching the McCullom 
home a distance of 3-4 of one mile (Tr. 64) she and 
children alighted from car, entered her house, 
Davidson proceeded in car to an 80-acre tract of 
land which he claimed to own where he remained 
a short time and then returning in car to store 
claiming to have passed Robert alone going east 
from store on highway near the old log house or 
barn. He conceded he had no watch but conjec­
tured it was about 2:30 or 3:00 p. m. (Tr. 59) 
when he, Mrs. McCullom and children departed in 
car and he returned to store probably in about 3-4 
of or an hour (Tr. 60).

While the witness testified on direct examina­
tion Robert Bell was going towards the bayou, how­
ever, it cannot be gainsaid nor refuted that it would

— 84—



be utterly impossible for him to have gone east, 
west, south or intervening points without going in 
the direction of bayou for the reason that the bayou 
is a semi-circle intersecting the Hughes-Memphis 
Highway both east and west of store, the further- 
est distance of that part of the circle south of high­
way being only 140 to 150 steps or yards.

There is no variance between the evidence of 
this witness and that of the Bell boy except as to 
the time of day for it will be borne in mind the 
Bell boy testified that a short time after the de­
parture of Mrs. McCullom and youngest children 
he went to and got on his old horse and proceeded 
to the McCullom home.

No witness has even intimated whether or not 
the old horse was grazing on highway at or hitched 
near the old barn.

This is the witness who at his own expense 
claims he came all the way from Dyersburg, Ten­
nessee, fo Cotton Plant, Arkansas, to testify in this 
case notwithstanding the fact that he was in pos­
session of all these facts and lived in St. Francis 
County and near Greasy Corner all of 1928, he did 
not tell Mr. McCullom nor any person (Tr. 62) 
that he knew anything about the case nor was he 
subpoenaed (Tr. 7). He had no watch but merely 
conjectured the time of day. How can his inconsist-

— 85-



encies be reconciled when it is true that he lived on 
date of drowning and for sometime thereafter on 
the Collier farm which the evidence shows was 
only two and one-half miles of Greasy Corner and 
he well knew that the most strenuous efforts were 
being made to solve the ill conceived idea a crime 
had been committed, the Swain boy who lived on the 
Collier farm and near him and whom he knew and 
the Bell boy whom he also knew had been arrested, 
accused of the supposed crime, incarcerated in jail 
and tried more than three months after the bodies 
of Julius and Elbert had been removed from the 
bayou. With all these things transpiring in his im­
mediate vicinity yet he is as quiet as a tombstone 
mouse.

No witness produced by the state or defendant 
saw Julius McCullom after the time he was at the 
car with his younger brother in his arms talking, 
and desiring to take his mother and the younger 
children home in the McCullom car unless it were 
Raymond Ferguson and Henry Flowers, both col­
ored, who were at the store about 5:00 o’clock or 
sundown that afternoon, Ferguson was in a wagon 
adjusting some furniture and Flowers on the ground 
by the side of the wagon, G. R. Smith, a garage ad­
junct, Will Thomas, a negro crap shooter and dive 
keeper, and German Jones, “ who is no Rounder.”

— 86—



R A Y M O N D  F E R G U S O N  T E S T I F I E D :

Q. I ask you to tell the jury about what time 
it was when you drove up in the wagon. A. It was 
late when I drove up, I couldn’t exactly tell the 
time but it was late. Q. Was it light, could you 
see? A. Yes sir. (Tr. 93). Q. Was there a 
fence around it (Pasture) ? A. Yes sir, there has 
been a fence around it, but they taken it down and 
built a store there. Q. How did they cross the 
fence? A. Well, Julius and Elbert, they had done 
got through the fence and Grady Swain hollered 
back after a fellow they call Henry Flowers (Tr. 
94). Q. You say when you saw these boys that 
evening it was very late? A. Yes sir (Tr. 95). 
Q. Was it sundown? A. No sir, it wasn’t quite 
sundown. Q. Would you say it was as late as five 
o’clock? A. Yes sir, because it was dark when I 
got home that evening. Q. How far were you from 
home when you saw these boys? A. Around two 
miles (Tr. 96). Q. It must have been five o’clock? 
A. Yes sir. Q. You saw them alive about five 
o’clock that evening, and you didn’t see Bell at all? 
A. If he was there, I didn’t see him (Tr. 97). 
Q. You didn’t see him (Bell) at all but about five 
o’clock you say you did see Elbert and Julius go 
down under the hill? A. Yes sir, about five 
o’clock (Tr. 98).



Q. What time did you leave (Store going 
home in wagon) ? A. I don’t know exactly what 
time it was when I left, it was late over in the 
evening. Q. Were they (Julius, Grady and Elbert) 
going in that direction or not (Bayou) ? A. No sir, 
when I seen them they were getting under the 
fence. I don’t know whether they went that way 
or not (Tr. 173). Q. You never saw them after 
they were getting under the fence, and you don’t 
know whether they separated or not? A. No sir. 
Q. You never saw them any more after they left 
the wire fence? A. No sir (Tr. 176). “ I just 
seen them when they went under the wire fence, is 
all I seen.”

G. R. SMITH SAYS:

Q. Before that did you see Robert Bell? A. 
YES SIR, ABOUT 2 :00 O’CLOCK I SENT HIM 
DOWN TO PRESS JACKSON’S FROM MY SHOP 
TO TELL MY WIFE TO COME UP TO THE 
STORE, HER BROTHER WAS THERE AND HE 
HADN’T SEEN HER FOR SOMETIME (Tr. 180). 
Q. Did you see Julius and Swain and Elbert to­
gether that afternoon. A. Absolutely. Q. Where 
were they; where were they going? A. I pulled 
a truck out of the shop that afternoon about 3:30 
somewhere along there, as near as I can tell you

H E N R Y  F L O W E R S  T E S T I F I E D :

— 88—



now, they were going across the banks toward the 
bayou. Q. About what time of day was that? 
A. About 3 :30, as near as I can judge. Q. Along 
that time, at any time, did you see the defendant 
here? A. Well, just before that I saw him. 
Q. How long before? A. Possibly, 15 minutes. 
Q. Tell the jury where you saw him? A. Going 
down, east we call it, toward the old house. 
Q. When did you next see Bell? A. I saw him a 
little after 3:30; along toward 4:00 o’clock. 
Q. Where did you next see him then ? A. Coming 
back up from toward the old house. Q. Did you 
see him toward the bridge that evening? A. He 
turned from the shop toward the bridge. Q. What 
time was that? A. Near 4:00 o’clock. Q. You 
don’t know whether he went to the bridge or not? 
A. I don’t. I didn’t pay any attention. Q. When 
did you next see Bell; that was 4:00 o’clock? 
A. The next time I saw Bell, I believe, it was the 
next day (Tr. 186).

The testimony of this witness is not credible 
even in the least degree when we take into consid­
eration that he was living and daily working with­
in seventy-five yards of the front door of the Mc- 
Cullom store, daily and hourly seeing, associating 
with both Mr. and Mrs. McCullom for seven or 
eight months prior and sixty or more days subse­
quent to the unfortunate drowning, well knowing

— 89—



the state of mind and prejudicial feelings of the 
populace of Greasy Corner and neighborhood 
against Thomas, both the little Swain boy and the 
Bell boy arrested, conducted before the Coroner’s 
jury in his presence and questioned in his sight and 
hearing, heard their denials, both taken to and 
placed in jail, circuit court convening, grand jury 
empanelled, indictment returned and trial had and 
no doubt daily and nightly attended by him, hear­
ing the evidence adduced, still he was as quite as a 
church mouse, not even one note comes from his 
lips, he knew and looked as a sphinx. This cannot 
be reconciled with reason or common justice. He 
does not claim to have been intimidated, scared, 
sick or frightened, with all of the diligence of 
Campbell, the sheriff, John I. Jones, deputy, all of 
the McCulloms, Smalley, Cranor, Todhunter, Har­
graves, et al, none were able to procure anything 
from this witness or ascertain that he knew any­
thing.

This witness the same as all others for the state 
had no timepiece however, his fixing the time was 
a mere supposition.

His idea of time is based solely upon moving 
a car he had repaired and removed out of the 
garage. He does not claim he had a clock or watch 
at the garage.

•90—



It is conceded and cannot be refuted that 
Davidson, Smith, Will Thomas, A. P. Campbell, B. 
McCullom and Ransom McCullom gave exactly and 
precisely the same time of every movement made 
by each of the boys that afternoon although not a 
one of them had a watch or clock which conclusive­
ly shows an understanding between all prior to 
giving their evidence, not even one of them refer to 
the sun or any other object upon which they based 
their idea as to time and notwithstanding all of this 
one year before this trial however only sixty days 
after the unfortunate occurrence when it was be­
ing much talked of, excitement high, consultations 
with state’s attorney and those employed by B. Mc­
Cullom, “Figuring it out,”  with the sheriff, making 
trip after trip to the walls, both boys beaten and 
talking to witnesses in case, Mrs. McCullom and 
Ransom McCullom each and all specifically, 
emphatically, solemnly testified time after time 
and then time and time again at former trial it was 
between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon 
when Ransom McCullom returned from Hughes 
with truck of merchandise and Mrs. McCullom pre­
pared and left in about 15 or 20 minutes thereafter 
for her home and Julius met her somewhere after 
she passed out of store with one of the children in 
his arm and wanted to take her home in the Mc­
Cullom car which conclusively and beyond all per-

— 91—



adventure discloses he was alive and the Bell boy 
was at the store right at 4 :00 o’clock, for all of the 
three, Mrs. McCullom, B. and Ransom McCullom 
testified positively in former trial and in this trial 
admitted they did, that he was in the store upon 
return of Ransom McCullom at 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock, 
from Hughes with freight and she further positive­
ly testified that Robert passed in the store as she 
passed out on her way with children to go home.

This cannot be denied. This cannot be con­
tradicted. This cannot be gainsaid nor disputed, 
then how could Mrs. McCullom leave the store be­
tween 2:00 and 3:00 o’clock; then how could 
Robert be going to the old log house or barn at 
3:00 or 3:30 o’clock; then how could he be on the 
bridge dividing a stick of candy with Grady Swain 
at 4:00 o’clock?

Those who testified Ransom McCullom return­
ed between 2:00 and 3:00 o’clock with freight or 
that Mrs. McCullom left for home between 2:00 
and 3 :00 o’clock or that Robert Bell was near the 
old log house or going toward the ill-fated place of 
accidental drowning or that he and Grady Swain 
were on the bridge at or near 4 :00 o’clock or any 
other time were coached and drilled and caused 
to perjure their souls.

According to the testimony of Will Thomas

— 92—



on direct examination, Robert Bell, Julius Mc- 
Cullom, Elbert Thomas and Grady Swain were at 
the store between 2 :00 and 3 :00 o’clock that after­
noon, Robert left going east in the direction of the 
old log barn, a few minutes after Robert had gone 
Julius, Elbert and Grady left going by the garage 
to the bayou, and about one-half of an hour there­
after witness went to the barn to feed the stock 
(Tr. 72), sometime afterwards Grady was on the 
bayou bridge directly south of the store whistling 
for Robert who came from the store to where Grady 
was and he and Grady divided a stick of candy. 
Robert then left and got on his horse. He did not 
see Robert again until, “ ABOUT SIX O’CLOCK, HE 
CAME TO MY HOUSE, AND HE HAD A  TEN 
DOLLAR BILL THAT HE LOST IN A  CRAP 
GAME, I FIRST ASKED HIM W AS IT HIS 
FATHER’S, AND HE TOLD ME NO, AND I ASK­
ED HIM HOW HE GOT IT AND HE SAID HE 
WORKED EASY AND GOT IT.” (Tr. 74).

According to his testimony on cross examina­
tion, the Bell boy left the store, went east towards 
the old log house somewhere between two and 
three o’clock (Tr. 80), then Mrs. McCullom left 
for her home with little Holbert and Francis walk­
ing, then Julius, Grady and Elbert left also some­
time between two and three o’clock for the bayou 
to bait the traps (Tr. 83), sometime thereafter he

93—



saw the Bell boy on the bridge with Grady, 
“ RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STORE,” the distance, 
“ I DON’T KNOW, I HAVE FORGOTTEN, NOT SO 
VERY FAR,” direction, “ SOUTH FROM THE 
STORE,” and “ABOUT ONE HUNDRED YARDS.”

Q. What direction is it (old log barn) ? 
A. East of the store. Q. Oh, this is east of the 
store, how far from it? A. A  little better than one 
hundred yards. Q. And the next time you saw him 
he was on the bridge south of the store, that is 
correct, isn’t it? A. Sure. (Tr. 86). Q. Weren’t 
you in the crap game that you were telling us 
about? A. I don’t know. Q. You know about 
one man losing a ten dollar bill and another selling 
a watch for a quarter and you were not in the 
game? A. I don’t know. Q. You can’t name a 
single solitary person that was in that crap game? 
A. No sir. Q. Not a human being in that crap 
game; don’t you know that there was no crap game 
took place and you are making every word of this 
testimony? A. I didn’t keep up with them. 
Q. You can’t tell a single solitary person present 
at that crap game— nobody, and yet you were 
brought here to testify to the facts, and you are 
testifying about the ten dollar bill and about selling 
the watch? A. It slipped my remembrance (Tr. 
79). Q. How do you know they went to set the 
traps? A. They left and said they were going and

— 94—



my brother said that Mr. Mack’s little boy was go­
ing to steal some sardines to bait the traps with, 
and I told him not to do it. Q. Do you mean the 
little eleven-year-old boy that was drowned was 
going to steal what? A. Some sardines. Q. Who 
was he going to steal the sardines from? A. To 
bait the traps with. Q. Where was he going to 
steal them? A. At the store. Q. Out of his 
father’s store; you tell the jury that this boy was 
going to steal sardines out of his father’s store and 
he didn’t do it because you told him not to? A. I 
told my brother not to— I told him not to let him 
do it. Q. Did you ever tell that to anybody? 
A. Yes sir, I told it. Q. Who to? A. Them—  
Mr. Mack and them. Q. When did you tell Mr. 
Mack about that? A. When I got out of jail. 
Q. Why didn’t you tell them about this other when 
you got out? A. I just didn’t tell it. (Tr. 80). 
Q. Were you there when his mother left the store? 
A. Yes sir. Q. Who did you see her leave with? 
A. With her little children. Q. Which one of her 
children did she leave with? A. Holbert and 
Francis (Tr. 81). (Mrs. McCullom left Holbert at 
Press Jackson’s) Q. How did she go? A. She walk­
ed. Q. Are you sure she walked up there? A. 
Yes sir. Q. You say you were there and you saw 
her leave and you know that she walked home with 
her children? A. She did. Q. You know she

— 95—



didn’t ride home in a car. A. Yes sir. Q. You 
know that as well as you do the other busi­
ness, about the crap game and the ten dollar 
business, one is just as true as the other one? 
A. Yes sir (Tr. 82). Q. Where were you when 
they arrested you? A. On my way up the road 
leaving. Q. Where did they catch you? A. Up 
near Proctor Q. How far is Proctor from where 
McCullom lived? A. I don’t know. Q. About 
how far? A. I couldn’t tell. Q. How did you 
get up there? A. Walked. Q. When did they 
arrest you? A. About three o’clock, something 
like that. Q. The next day? A. Yes sir. 
Q. After this occurred? A. Yes sir. Q. You 
have been there ever since (McCullom’s) ? A. No 
sir, I left and went to Blytheville. Q. How long 
were you gone then? A. About three or four 
months, something like that (Tr. 77). Q. Then 
what did you do? A. Came back. Q. Then 
where did you go? A. No where. Q. Did you 
go to Mr. Mack’s, I mean? A. Yes sir. Q. Then 
you stayed there until now? A. Yes sir. Q. Where 
do you live down there? A. I stayed at Mr. 
Mack’s; I have got a house down there to stay in 
(Tr. 78).

Is it possible for us to believe one word said by 
Will Thomas who admits he tried to flee the coun­
try and did make his getaway as far as Proctor

— 96—



where arrested, placed in jail yet he did not chirp 
one jot of what he claimed to know, however, his 
own brother, the State claims, was ruthlessly and 
inhumanly murdered by two boys, one and possibly 
both were in jail with him in Forrest City. Again 
he was at the inquest when both boys, the coroner, 
coroner’s jury, spectators, both Ransom and B. 
McCullom, his close personal friends and officers 
were present, yet he says not one word. He tries 
to assuage and paliate his conscience by endeavor­
ing to create sympathy for attempting to flee the 
country by saying the two boys told the officers he 
supplied his brother with a horse to leave the coun­
try, well knowing both boys were arrested early on 
the morning of December 30, 1927, by two officers 
who held them under arrest and in custody until 
lodged in jail that afternoon. He admits he was 
arrested at Proctor about 3 :00 o’clock in the after­
noon on day following the drowning and that he 
walked from Greasy Corner to Proctor a distance 
of about 25 miles, hence he must to have left some­
time before noon. He does not claim he talked to 
either of the boys before leaving Greasy Corner, 
nor does he give the name of the officer whom the 
boys told he furnished a horse to Elbert upon which 
to leave the country, nor when they told the officer, 
nor when the officer told him, certainly not the 
“ Trying to figure it out” Campbell. This state-

— 97—



ment is purely an unadulterated fabrication placed 
in the mouth of this ignorant, half demented negro 
by some unscrupulous white man.

Again, would a person of ordinary intelligence 
six years of age believe such an absurd occur­
rence as:

Q. Robert came back and got his horse, then 
where did he go? A. I DON’T KNOW WHERE HE 
WENT: AFTERWARDS, ABOUT SIX O’CLOCK,
HE CAME TO MY HOUSE, AND HE HAD A TEN 
DOLLAR BILL THAT HE LOST IN A CRAP 
GAME, I FIRST ASKED HIM W AS IT HIS FATH­
ER’S, AND HE TOLD ME, “ NO,”  AND I ASKED 
HIM HOW HE GOT IT AND HE SAID HE WORK­
ED EASY AND GOT IT.”

How did this boy come to the home of witness 
with a ten dollar bill, “ That he lost in a crap game” ? 
If he had lost the ten dollar bill shooting craps, 
how did he take it and show it to witness at his 
home? The money had passed out of the boy’s 
hands into the hands of his adversary, then how 
did he take it and show it to witness at his home?

Q. You can’t tell a single solitary person pres­
ent at the crap game, nobody, and yet you were 
brought here to testify to the facts, and yet you 
are testifying about the ten dollar bill and about 
selling the watch? A. It slipped my remembrance.

— 98—



Q. Weren’t you in the crap game you were telling 
us about? A. I don’t know.

This witness when released from jail returned 
to and remained at Greasy Corner for a number of 
days knowing all of these claimed to be facts, yet 
he did not say one word, even his own brother was 
drowned to Mr. McCullom nor no other person. 
Then he left for Blytheville, the home of German 
Jones, without saying one word to anyone. This 
witness also says the bridge is 100 yards south and 
in front of the store when in truth and a matter of 
fact no bridge is there. He also testified that Mrs. 
McCullom walked home taking little Holbert with 
her when in fact Mrs. McCullom and Mr. Ransom 
McCullom and Robert Bell all say she left him at 
the store. He also testified that he personally 
knew she did not ride home in a car. All of his 
testimony is a fabrication from inception to con­
clusion— not one word of truth in it.

If the remotest consideration can be placed in 
the evidence of Raymond Ferguson and Henry 
Flowers both of whom reached the store at the 
same time, on the same wagon, remained there 
the same length of time, had the same opportunity 
to observe, left at the same time and on the same 
wagon the only conclusion which can be drawn from 
what they testify is that it was very late in the 
evening when they saw Julius, Elbert and Grady

— 99—



at the three-strand wire fence. Flowers says, “ It 
was late over in the evening” and, “ I just seen them 
when they went under the fence, is all I seen,” yet 
he is the very person to whom they claim Grady 
was hollering. Ferguson says, it was 5:00 o’clock, 
not quite sundown, and the same is true as to Smith 
and Will Thomas. Smith says he sent Robert Bell 
to the home of Press Jackson at 2 :00 o’clock p. m. to 
notify his wife her brother was at the garage, saw 
Robert again at about 3:15 p. m. going east towards 
the old log house or barn and saw him the third 
time coming back at about 4:00 o’clock from the 
old house going towards the garage and upon 
reaching the garage turned south in the direction 
of the bridge and did not see him again until the 
next morning at the coroner’s inquest. Will Thomas 
says Grady, Julius and Elbert left going towards 
the bayou between 2:00 and 3:00 o’clock, Robert 
left going in the direction of the old log barn about 
the same time and in an hour or so he was at the 
bridge dividing candy with Grady. These are the 
only persons who claim to have seen Julius or El­
bert after the departure of Mrs. McCullom, but 
can one particle of credence be placed in the testi­
mony of any one of these four?

Ferguson and Flowers do not agree upon any 
point except it was 5:00 o’clock or sundown when 
they were at the store looking at the boys go under

— 100—



the wire fence which being true they were alive at 
that time.

Could it be possible or even probable for any­
one to give the slightest consideration or the re­
motest credence to the testimony of German Jones, 
another Blytheville young negro man who claims 
he was a roustabout on a boat on the Mississippi 
River yet could not tell whether he had been on 
the boat two or more weeks, and further claims he, 
a stranger, walked from the boat to Hughes and 
from Hughes to a plantation, roomed with and pick­
ed cotton for a man who is dead, nor could he tell 
the distance from Hughes to the farm or from the 
farm to Greasy Corner when he says, “ I was over on 
the bayou that afternoon hunting and heard a splash 
in the water, and thinking it might be some ducks, I 
slipped through the bushes to see what it was, and 
when I got in sight, I saw two colored people throw 
a white human in the water,”  and, “ Standing in the 
boat— facing each other just like this” (facing each 
other). Question. Then what did you do? A. Run. 
Q. What did they do then, after they threw him in 
the water? A. I don’t know what they did after­
wards, I didn’t stay long enough to see. Q. How 
far were you from them? A. I don’t know, I 
didn’t measure it, to my eyes it was twenty-five or 
thirty steps, I reckon, I don’t know (Tr. 103).

— 101—



He lived on the plantation from December, 
1927, to March, 1928, but never returned to the 
place where Julius and Elbert drowned.

Q. Did you go up there after you saw this, 
did you go to the store and tell a single soul what 
you had seen? A. No sir. Q. Did you hear 
about this boy being dead? A. That night, yes 
sir. Q. You knew his body was found that night? 
A. Yes sir. Q. Where were you when you heard 
about it? A. At home in bed. Q. How far is 
that from where the boy was drowned. A. I 
don’t know. Q. You have no idea? A. No sir. 
Q. How long did it take you to get from this place 
back to your home when you say you ran? A. I 
don’t know. Q. About how long? A. I don’t 
know, I can’t tell. Q. What sort of looking boys 
were these you saw? A. I didn’t pay any atten­
tion to their looks. Q. You don’t know whether 
they were bright or colored? A. Colored is all 
I know. Q. Were they dark, or large or small 
(Tr. 110) ? A. I didn’t pay any attention, no more 
than they were colored. Q. Were they large or 
small or medium, or what sort of boys were they? 
A. I don’t know, they were colored. Q. You say 
you were twenty-five or thirty steps from them; 
that would be about the distance across this court­
house, and you can’t tell whether they were large, 
small, or tall or whether they were dark or bright;

- 102-



•why can’t you tell if you saw them? A. I didn’t pay 
any attention to that. Q. Can you give the de­
scription of the kind of clothes they had on? 
A. No sir. Q. Did they have hats or caps on? 
A. I don’t know. Q. Did they have boots or 
shoes on? A. I didn’t pay any attention. Q. Did 
they have jumpers on? A. I didn’t pay any atten­
tion. Did they have overalls on? A. I didn’t pay 
any attention. Q. Did they have coats on? A. I 
don’t know (Tr. 111). Q. You heard that night 
after this thing occurred that Mr. McC'ullom had 
lost his little boy, eleven years old, and you stood 
on the bayou and you had seen the little boy thrown 
in the bayou and drowned, and yet you stood there 
and waited until this time; you didn’t go and tell 
his father who killed his little boy? (Tr. 112). 
(No answer.) Q. You heard something splash, did 
you see anything in the water? A. I wasn’t there 
then. Q. That was what attracted your attention, 
wasn’t it? A. Yes sir, it attracted my attention 
when I heard the splash. Q. After the splash 
something had hit the water, and you didn’t see 
what hit the water, did you? A. No sir. Q. Well, 
how did you know it was a white boy that they 
threw in the water then? A. They threw that in 
after I got in sight. Q. There was one splash that 
you heard and then there was another splash that 
you heard? A. I didn’t hear it— I seed the other

— 103—



splash. Q. Then there were two splashes— one 
that you heard and one that you saw, and you 
can’t tell what kind of boys these were, when they 
did it right before your eyes? A. I didn’t know 
(Tr. 116). Q. How far were you from the bayou 
when you heard the first splash? A. I don’t 
know. Q. About how far? A. I don’t know. 
Q. Give some idea? A. I can’t give no idea for 
not knowing. Q. There wasn’t anybody hollering 
or struggling or gasping or anything at all, and yet 
you say you were twenty-five or thirty steps away, 
and you couldn’t hear a sound that took place; 
and you just turned your back and ran and never 
told it to a soul, although you heard about the boy 
being drowned that night? A. I didn’t tell it then. 
Q. What sort of a boy did they throw in the bayou? 
A. A white boy. Q. What size? A. It wasn’t 
no great large one, I know that. Q. A little bit 
of a boy? A. He wasn’t too small, he didn’t look 
to be grown. Q. You noticed that part about this 
boy that was drowned, why can’t you tell what size 
they were that did the drowning? A. That is 
what I looked at— I wasn’t looking at the rest of 
it; I was looking what was going in the water 
(Tr. 117). Q. When did you come back here? 
A. Two weeks ago. Q. How came you to come 
back two weeks ago? I was subpoenaed. Q. How 
did they know you were in Mississippi County?

— 104—



A. I told them that— while I was down there— I 
told them that “ I W ASN’T NO ROUNDER, OR 
NOTHING LIKE,” and that I had a home. Q. You 
were there three months after this thing occurred 
or happened and you never told it? A. No sir. 
(Tr. 114).

We have copied copiously the testimony of 
this witness to call attention of the court to its 
absurdity and worthlessness for by the testimony of 
this witness the state hopes to establish the corpus 
delicti but has gloriously failed to do so.

Are we to place one particle of credence in 
the testimony of A. P. Campbell, the worthless and 
shiftless lackey in and around the McCullom store 
with whom Robert spent the remainder of night 
after 9:00 or 9:30, who with Robert rode Robert’s 
horse from the store to the home of Campbell, 
taking only about 10 minutes (an ordinary horse 
in an ordinary gate walks three miles per hour, 
hence if distance was one mile from store to home 
of Campbell it took only one-third of an hour or 
twenty minutes to make the trip, but if it was only 
one-half mile according to the evidence of Camp­
bell in former trial it required only ten minutes to 
make the trip), talking about seven colored girls 
on the way, one of whom was his girl and one of 
whom was the girl of Robert, who had been accused 
of the supposed drowning of Julius and Elbert, ar-

— 105—



rested, placed and confined in jail in Forrest City, 
several times given the third degree, who had been 
in and around store numbers of days and nights, 
but said nothing to defend or protect innocent 
Thomas, well knowing he would be lynched or 
burned, subsequent to the occurrence and prior to 
his arrest and being placed and held in jail, never 
breathed to a human being one jot or title told to 
him by Robert pertaining the supposed drowning 
until given in his presence the gentle brushings to 
Charlie Henry and others no doubt in the same 
ante-room to the same jail by the same Mr. Camp­
bell in the presence of his man Friday, Smalley, 
who was subpoenaed to and did appear at both 
trials to see that his demented negro dupe testified 
correctly, after which, not before, he recalled Rob­
ert without rhyme or rythm “ Blated” out that he 
drowned Elbert and Grady drowned Julius, with­
out being asked where, when, how, motive or 
reason or without Robert telling him the cause, the 
purpose, the manner or the mode. He asked no 
questions nor did Robert say more or less, yet if 
he is to be believed he goes placidly, peacefully 
and undisturbedly on in his quiet, serene and happy 
way from that night until the second week in 
January following when arrested without chirp­
ping this to anyone and then not until accused, ar­
rested, incarcerated and held in jail, given the third

- 106-



degree, and the forced written confessions were 
read to him, we suppose by the same Mr. Campbell, 
hamestring weilder, the blood hound trailer, or his 
man Friday, Smalley, and probably a spanking 
afore and aft by good and faithful Mr. McCullom.

It is contrary to all reason and common sense 
that Robert should make such statement to this 
worthless and shiftless witness yet not tell him the 
manner, nor the cause, nor the purpose he and 
Grady did the drowning and Campbell not to ask 
him the cause, purpose, the place, when, where or 
for what reason, and permit Robert to go to and sleep 
at his home, in his bed with him and associate with 
him, knowing him to be the most damnable, blood­
thirsty assassin and the following day and many 
days and nights thereafter realizing and well know­
ing that an innocent man was being sought by the 
populace and officers and if apprehended severely 
dealt with, and notwithstanding all of this he says 
nothing until after being accused, arrested, placed 
and held in jail, and sweated down, and saw Henry 
and others “ Doctored with extracts of hame­
string tea,” and confronted with extorted written 
confessions, nevertheless practically all of this time 
the entire country was in fever heat looking for 
poor old innocent Thomas whom he knew to be as 
innocent as a new born babe.

It does not comport to nor in accord with

— 107—



reason that he was non-communicative of what he 
claims Robert told him on account of fear. Certain­
ly he was not afraid of Grady nor Robert, none of 
the McCulloms, they and their friends and neigh­
bors were his friends, none of the officers would 
have hurt him for telling the truth, hence who was 
he afraid of.

When we bear in mind these parties were at 
the store for about three and one-half hours dur­
ing all of which time all of the McCulloms, their 
neighbors and friends were in and around the store 
and in the presence and hearing of both Campbell 
and the Bell boy discussing the unfortunate occur­
rence, all of whom after the recovery of Julius’ 
body were surmizing for some unknown reason 
Thomas had drowned him, the most natural thing 
and a sequence would be for Campbell and the 
Bell boy and no doubt both were discussing the 
drowning and referring to what they had heard at 
the store previous to their departure. No doubt 
at that time both thought Thomas was guilty 
of the supposed offence, then how natural, reason­
able and in accordance with common sense and 
human thought would it be for Robert to say, “ IF 
ELBERT HAD DROWNED JULIUS IT WAS 
MIGHTY BAD.”

Julius was his playmate, his companion, his 
associate, his friend, one with whom he had spent

108—



■hours of childish pleasures, with whom he had rid­
den the old horse time after tiime up and down the 
highway and each of whom would have suffered 
crucifixion for the other.

Robert says both were talking about the drown­
ing which would be perfectly natural, however 
Campbell says nothing whatever was said about it 
except the Bell boy “ Blurted” out that he drowned 
Thomas and Grady drowned Julius which is un­
natural and unbelievable and no human with rea­
sonable intelligence could possibly or would place 
the remotest belief in Campbell’s unnatural and 
unthinkable prevarication which is not even idiotical 
nonsense.

He and Robert undressed in the same room, 
slept in the same bed, yet he as Mrs. McCullom 
before whom Robert in her own house and in her 
immediate presence churned at her fireside, B. 
McCullom and Ransom McCullom in the presence 
of both of whom Robert appeared, stood, conversed 
about a twenty-five cent watch and purchased five 
cents worth of candy between four and five o’clock 
on that eventful afternoon, nevertheless none, not 
even one of them detected, although he was at and 
around their feet that his shoes or clothes were wet 
or even ruffled yet he had only a very, very short 
time prior thereto been standing and scuffling in 
a boat, according to the theory of the state, with

— 109—



six inches of water in it, dipping water from the 
boat and splashing same in the face of Juliius and 
early also the following morning he was before the 
father, mother, uncle, Campbell, two deputy sher­
iffs, coroner’s jury and spectators but none detect­
ed nor noticed that his shoes nor clother were wet 
nor torn. But of course as the negro had been con­
fined in jail for about five weeks, promised if he 
would agree to the written confession extorted 
from Robert he would be set free, he then and not 
until then consented to agree to it.

We believe Mrs. Lena McCullom is a true, a 
noble and Christian lady, and gave the facts in the 
case precisely as they occurred from end to end. 
Her testimony in instant case is the same in every 
respect as in former trial with one unintentional 
variation which is, in instant case, she said Ransom 
McCullom returned with truck of merchandise 
about the middle of the afternoon and she and the 
younger children remained in the store until mer­
chandise was unloaded then she and they departed 
for her home (Tr. 308) but readily and willingly ad­
mitted when her attention was called to it, that in 
former trial Ransom McCullom returned with the 
merchandise between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock in after­
noon and she and younger children remained in the 
store until merchandise was unloaded then left for

— 110—



home (Tr. 317). Let us see what this good lady 
says:

Q. You were there (store) when he came back 
from Hughes with the load of freight? A. Yes 
sir, and I stayed there until he unloaded his freight. 
Q. About what time did he come back with the 
freight as near as you can get it? A. About the 
middle of the afternoon.

Julius, Robert and Elbert were all either in 
or at the store at that time.

Q. Was Grady Swain in there (store) ? A. I 
don’t remember seeing Grady (Tr. 308). Q. Par­
don me, but you testified in this case before? 
A. Yes sir. Q. You testified that time, as you (I) 
recall that you left the store about three-thirty, or 
middle of the afternoon? A. It was a little over 
the middle of the afternoon; three-thirty or four 
o’clock, I expect it was; I don’t know exactly the 
time (Tr. 317). Q. Was Robert Bell at the store? 
A. He was out on the front porch and he started 
in, it looked like, when I started out. Q. The front 
porch was in front of the store? A. Yes sir (Tr. 
308). Q. How long did you stay at the store af­
ter Mr. Ransom McCullom came back with the 
freight? A. It wasn’t long because I was begging 
my little boy, Francis, to go with me. Francis was 
afflicted with epileptic spells and we let him have

— 111



his way, and I didn’t want to carry the car home—  
it was awfully muddy— and he didn’t want to go 
home unless he could ride, so I thought I would let 
him stay at the store, and I started off walking 
after he got the freight unloaded, and Mr. David­
son asked me to ride and I hollered then and told 
Francis to come on and Julius brought Francis on 
out and put him in the car (Tr. 309). Q. Did you 
(leaving store) go towards Mr. Press Jackson’s? 
A. No sir, I started the other way. Q. Towards 
Chatfieldf A. Yes sir. Q. It is east, now, you 
started towards Chatfield? A. Yes sir. Q. And 
he came by in a car? A. He started up that way 
and he asked me to ride; and I called Francis and 
Julius came out and brought him and put him in the 
car. Q. You have a little boy named Holbert? 
A. Yes sir, he was up at Press Jackson’s. Q. You 
did not take him home with you (Tr. 310) ? A. No 
sir, I didn’t, I took Charlotte, Francis and Billy. 
Q. You left Julius at the store and the other boy 
at Press Jackson’s? A. Yes sir. Q. Sometime 
after you reached home Robert came down there 
to your house? A. Yes sir. Q. How often had 
he been coming to your home? A. I have known 
Robert for six years; he has been coming around 
my house for six years; we had given that boy 
clothes, and doctored his sore feet, put clothes on 
him and had always treated him nice. Q. He play-

— 112—



ed with your children? A. Yes sir. Q. They 
rode his horse? A. Yes sir; he had been riding 
his horse around there for two or three weeks, 
Julius was crazy about a horse. Q. Right soon 
after you got home he came up riding his old horse? 
A. Not right soon after. Q. How long had you 
been home when he came up? A. About three- 
quarters of an hour or maybe longer, I don’t remem­
ber. Q. Did he get down off the horse (Tr. 311) ? 
A. Yes sir, he came in the house and asked me 
didn’t I have something that he could do for me, 
and I said, “ Robert, if you want to help me, you 
can churn,”  it was sitting close to the stove, though 
I just build a fire, I had been gone all day and the 
milk wasn’t ready to churn. He caught hold of the 
churn dasher and said, “ Let me churn and he 
churned a little bit; “ I started to fill the lamp with 
oil and I said, “ I haven’t got a bit of coal oil” and 
Robert said, “ Let me go and get the oil for you,” 
and I told him, “All right.”  He went and got the 
oil and when he came back it was dusky dark, that 
is all I know. Q. He came down on the horse and 
hitched the horse, and offered to help you churn, 
did he offer to help you do the other chores? A. He 
would have done anything else I asked him to d o ; 
I told him he could help me and he looked around 
and saw the churn. Q. You sent him back down 
to the store? A. He asked me could he go to the

— 113—



store after the oil and I told him he could. Q. Did 
he go down to the store and get the coal oil? 
A. Yes sir. Q. How long was he gone as near as 
you can remember? A. I don’t remember; it was 
dusky dark, that is when he came back. Q. When 
he came back, he had little Holbert riding the horse 
with him? (Tr. 312). A. Yes sir; and I told—  
when he asked me if Julius was at home— I told him 
“ No”  and I says, “ You get back to the store and 
help, you know daddy ain’t able to work,” that 
boy had (been) selling coal oil and helping around 
there to do things like that, as we thought he was 
a good boy. Q. He had been helping you around 
the store and your home for four or five years? 
A. Yes sir, off and on. Q. Had he been a good 
boy up to that time? A. I thought he had. Q. He 
had never stolen anything? A. Not that I know 
of. Q. He had never told you a story? A. I 
never did catch him in one. Q. Did he ever mis­
treat your children? A. He never did— he was 
good to them. Q. He was always known as a 
good boy? A. A good Christian boy if there ever 
was one. Q. He never did anything to your chil­
dren and he had always been kind and obedient to 
you, and what you told him to do? A. Yes sir. 
Q. When Robert came down there first time 
did you pay much attention to him? A. Yes sir, 
it seems like I was laying on the bed; I took a

•114-



nervous spell after I went home, I felt awful bad, 
I got up and he wanted to do something for me and 
he says: “ I come to see if you didn’t have some­
thing I could do for you.” Q. He had been eating 
there (Tr. 313) ? A. I had fed him all through 
Christmas, goose, duck, cake and pies, and every­
thing that I had, I had given him some of every­
thing. Q. Did you notice anything out of the way 
with his conduct? A. No sir. Q. Did you notice 
to see whether or not his clothes were wet, or his 
shoes wet? A. No sir, I sure didn’t. Q. You 
noticed nothing out of the way? A. I had always 
noticed that sometimes a tear would drop out of 
his eyes. Q. That was something the matter with 
one of his eyes? A. I have always noticed a tear 
in them (Tr. 314). Q. What did he (Julius) have 
on? A. He had on a sweater and overalls and 
he had pants on under them; what I had given 
him a few days before to put on. Q. (Did he 
have on lace boots or shoes or do you know? A. I 
don’t know exactly what he had on when he left the 
house. Q. Did you give Julius any money? A. 
No sir.

The testimony of this good Christian mother is 
the same in every respect and detail as that of 
Robert Bell. There is no variation nor departure 
one from the other from inception to conclusion so 
beyond all peradventure Julius was alive at 4:00

— 115



or 4:15 o’clock that eventful afternoon when he 
carried and placed little Francis McCullom in car 
with his mother at that time as she left for her home 
in car with Davidson and also without the least 
conjecture Robert was at the home of this good 
lady and mother in about 45 minutes after she 
reached her home, where evidently from what was 
done and said there he remained for at least 25 or 
30 minutes and then left on the old horse with oil 
can for the store where he personally drew the oil, 
located little Holbert when he and this eight-year- 
old boy returned to the McCullom home after hav­
ing ridden 1 3-4 or 2 miles reaching the home the 
second time about dusky dark, hence how could it 
be possible for this ignorant and helpless boy to be 
on the bridge between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock divid­
ing candy with the little Swain boy.

Robert says he divided a part of the stick of 
candy with the crap shooting Will Thomas and 
the fleetfooted expert witness did not deny this nor 
did he deny that he ran a crap shooting and gamb­
ling dive, the same witness who testified he saw 
a crap game in operation that afternoon yet did not 
know whether or not he was in game nor was he 
able to give the name of even one person who he 
claims participated in the game.

The testimony of Mrs. McCullom as to the 
time of her departure for home corresponds in

— 116—



Q. Did you (Ransom McCullom) testify this: 
(reading from transcript of former trial). “ Q. Did 
you see him before 4:00 o’clock that afternoon. 
A. I don’t remember. Q. You saw him at 4:00 
o’clock? A. I said about 4:00 o’clock. Q. Where 
was little Julius at that time? A. I don’t know, he 
was around the house, I suppose. Q. He was 
around the house? A. I reckon he was, I didn’t 
see Julius much that afternoon, he came in the 
store backwards and forwards. Q. Beginning at 
12:00 o’clock, what time after 12:00 o’clock did 
you see him (Bell) ? A. I went to Hughes that 
day— I went to Hughes and come back that after­
noon, I came back about 3:30. Q. Starting at 
3:30 where was Julius then? A. Julius come out 
by me, that was the last time I saw him.” 
“ Q. Starting at 3:30 where was Julius then. 
A. Julius came out by me, that was the last time 
I saw him. Q. Where were you when he came out 
by you? A. I was coming in the store with the 
freight. Q. When did Julius come out by you? 
A. Somewhere about 3:30. Q. At 3:30 in the 
afternoon, that was the last time that you saw 
Julius? A. Yes sir, it was the last time I saw him.” 
Again: “ Q. What time did he disappear (Julius) ?
A. A little after I got back. Q. Did he stay there

e v e ry  re sp e c t w ith  th a t  o f  b oth  R an so m  a n d  B .

M c C u llo m  on fo r m e r  tr ia l.

— 117—



a half-hour after you got back? A. I don’t think 
he did, he might have been there fifteen or twenty 
minutes. Q. You got back at 3:30 and add twenty 
minutes that would be 3:50; he stayed until five 
minutes until 4:00 o’clock? A. I wouldn’t say 
that. Q. You said he stayed there fifteen or 
twenty minutes? (Tr. 44 and 45).

And witness again says on page 150:

“ Q. I have forgotten; what time did you say 
yesterday that Bell left going down to your brother’s 
house? A. I didn’t say for certain what time; I 
said I seen him in the store about three-thirty, and 
that was the last time I saw him. Q. You saw him 
about 3:30? A. Yes sir.”

Witness again says on page 151:

“ I went to Hughes that day— I went to Hughes 
and come back that afternoon, I come back about 
three-thirty. Q. Starting at three-thirty, where 
was Julius then? A. Julius came out by me, that 
was the last time I saw him. Q. Where were you 
when he came out by you? A. I was coming in 
the store with the freight. Q. When did Julius 
come out by you? A. Somewhere about three- 
thirty? Q. At three-thirty in the afternoon, that 
was the last time that you saw Julius? A. Yes sir, 
it was the last time I saw him alive. Q. When you 
got back with the freight, did you see this boy

— 118—



(Bell) at the store? A. He disappeared. Q. What 
time did he disappear? A. A litttle while after 
I got back. Q. Did he stay there a half hour after 
you got back? A. I don’t think he did, he might 
have been there fifteen or twenty minutes. Q. You 
got back at three-thirty and add twenty that would 
make three-fifty; he stayed there until five min­
utes until four o’clock? A. I wouldn’t say that. 
Q. You said he stayed there fifteen or twenty min­
utes? A. I don’t remember how long he did stay, 
I know I seen him once after I got back from 
Hughes. Q. You remember seeing this boy once 
after you got back from Hughes about three-thirty? 
A. Yes sir. Q. He stayed in the store fifteen or 
twenty minutes? A. I don’t know, he might have. 
Q. Didn’t you testify time after time that you didn’t 
get back from Hughes until three-thirty? A. I won’t 
say for sure. Q. Do you know what time you did 
get back. A. No sir, I don’t know for sure. 
(Tr. 45).

Q. You (B. McCullom) testified to this be­
fore, didn’t you; reading from record of former 
trial ?

“ Q. Did Julius leave about the same time this 
defendant left to go to your house with the little 
boy? A. Julius left before that. Q. What time? 
A. About three-thirty or four o’clock. Q. Julius 
left your store about 3:30? A. 3:30 or 4:00

— 119



o’clock. Q. When Julius left there, where was 
this defendant (Bell) ? A. I didn’t see him. Q. 
Did you see him from 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock up until 
the time he went down to your wife’s house? A. Not 
until he came back and bought some candy, he 
went up to the house— I sent him up there to tell 
my little boy to come back to the store. Q. When 
did he come in and buy some candy? A. I think 
it was about 4:30 or 5:00 o’clock. Q. You say 
Julius left about 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock and that this 
boy was back at the store to buy candy about 4:00 
o’clock or 5:00 o’clock, where was he in the mean­
time. A. I don’t know.” Q. You testified to that 
didn’t you. A. I am testifying to that now. (Tr. 
349-350).

Then pray tell us how it would have been prob­
able, nay possible, for Robert Bell to have had the 
remotest connection with Julius’ drowning when we 
take into consideration the period of time interven­
ing between the departure of Mrs. McCullom for 
home in car, Robert following and reaching her 
home in 45 minutes after she did, assisting her with 
the churning, going back to the store with oil can, 
drawing the oil, locating and putting Holbert on 
the old jogging horse behind him, returning to and 
reaching the home at dusky dark, having ridden 
about one and three-quarters or two miles.

Let us look a little further into the facts as

— 120—



Q. You (B. McCullom) know when he came in 
to get the coal oil; do you know how long he had 
been at the store before he got the coal oil? A. I 
don’t know about the coal oil. Q. Did you see 
him draw the coal oil. A. No sir, I didn’t see him. 
Q. Then, he went up to your house and came back 
and reported that Julius wasn’t at home? A. Yes 
sir. Q. What time was that? A. It was dark, 
I had to get the flashlight out to go down to the 
bayou, where I knowed he had been going across to 
set out some traps, to see if I could find any trace. 
Q. Your memory was fresher before; you testified 
that he got back and you started calling him and it 
was an hour before you got your flashlight? A. I 
might have called him, I know I called him some, 
I called him then I went down to the bayou bank 
and took the flashlight. Q. You testified before 
that it was an hour before it got real dark? A. If 
it is in the record I won’t dispute it (Tr. 344).

RANSOM McCULLOM:

Q. What time did you miss Julius? A. We 
missed him about four-thirty or five o’clock 
(Tr. 47). Q. Do you remember when this boy, 
Bell, came in the store and bought something from 
you that afternoon? A. Yes sir- Q. What time was

re v e a le d  b y  th e  e v id e n c e  o f  b o th  R a n so m  an d  B .

M c C u llo m .

— 121—



it? A. He came in about a little before sundown.
Q. Was that before or after you missed Julius? 
A. IT WAS AFTER WE MISSED HIM. WE HAD­
N’T MISSED HIM AT THE TIME. WE HADN’T 
SUSPICIONED ABOUT HIM BEING GONE: WE 
THOUGHT HE WAS AROUND THE HOUSE 
SOMEWHERE. Q. You testified in this case be­
fore that you went to the bayou, thinking Julius 
had been drowned? A. No sir.

Q. Now, I will ask you if you didn’t answer 
this (reading from record) : “ Q. You said this
boy Bell, came in there and bought some candy,” 
A. No. sir, I didn’t say bought candy. Q. And 
your answer (quoting) “ A. Yes sir, he .came in 
there but I wouldn’t say that he bought candy; I 
know he bought something from me. Q. Did he 
buy it on the 29th or 30th? A. On the 29th. 
Q. What time of day did he buy it? A. Well, I 
suppose it was about four o’clock,” that is what you 
testified before, wasn’t it. A. Well, I said about 
there— you know that I didn’t say what time it was. 
(Reading) : “ Q. He was in the store buying candy 
about four o’clock.” A. I said about four o’clock, 
and I didn’t say candy, read on down further there 
a little further. (Reading). “ Q. He bought some­
thing; how much did he pay, what did he pay for 
it? A. I remember him spending a nickle.”

A. Yes sir (Tr. 147).

- 122-



Q. Robert was in the store, and you waited 
on him, was there anything unnatural in his actions 
or conduct? A. Nothing. Q. He acted natural? 
A. Yes sir. Q. Did you see anything the matter 
with his clothes? A. I didn’t pay any attention to 
his clothes. Q. Did you notice his shoes? A. I 
didn’t notice. Q. Did you notice his trousers that 
afternoon when he was buying something from 
you? A. I didn’t notice, I didn’t pay any atten­
tion to his clothes. Q. He was in the store two 
or three times there and around the store after Mrs. 
McCullom left in plain sight and view of you? 
A. It was night. Q. I am talking about in the 
afternoon ? A. He left when she left, or about the 
time she left and didn’t come back in there until 
about sundown. Q. And that was when he bought 
something? A. The first time when he came back 
in the store after he left— when I had come back 
from Hughes, and he left and come back— , If you 
want me to, I will tell you the reason I noticed about 
his buying something was because he had a little 
old watch on pawn for fifty cents, he told me he 
had pawned, and I told him— he was buying some 
thrash or something and I told him that he had bet­
ter try to save his money and get his watch out. 
He said, “ I AIN’T GOT BUT A  NICKLE, AND I 
WILL SPEND IT.” (Tr. 155).

Q. What time of day was that? t

123—



A. A  little be fore  sundown.

Q. How long before sundown was it when you 
missed Julius and begun looking for him? A. I 
didn’t seriously miss him until near about dark. 
(This was when Robert returned from the McCul- 
lom house and reported that Julius was not at 
home). It was dark before we found out he wasn’t 
at home or around there somewhere. Q. You 
went out and called Julius? A. Yes sir, I called 
him. Q. What time did you start calling him? 
A. It was dark. Q. Isn’t it a fact that you testi­
fied in this case before that you looked for that boy 
an hour before you started calling him? A. I said 
I went to Hughes and asked for him, and I didn’t 
find him and when I come back and nobody had 
seen him, I went down to the bayou and called him. 
Q. That occurred after night; I am talking about 
in the daytime. Didn’t you testify in this case be­
fore that you looked for that boy for an hour be­
fore you started calling him? A. It was dark when 
I got back. Q. I want to ask you if you didn’t 
testify to this; I am talking, now about Bell and 
Holbert— (Reading). “ Q. What time did he send 
them to the house? A. I don’t know what time he 
sent them; he come and asked me about had I seen 
Julius. Q. You missed Julius before or after 
night? A. Julius come out of the door as I come 
in. Q. Did you go out and look for Julius be-

124



fore or after night? A. It was gettting late when 
I was looking for him. Q. Before or after night ? 
A. A little bit before night. Q. That was when 
you detected Julius was gone? A. Yes sir, brother 
had missed him, and he had been looking for him 
and he had been calling him and had some of the 
folks out looking for him? Q. How long had you 
been calling before you started looking for him? 
A. About an hour. Q. He had been calling him 
an hour before you started looking for him. A. He 
had been about that time hunting for him. Q. He 
had been calling for an hour before you started 
looking for him? A. Yes sir, he had. Q. You 
started looking for him just before dark.” Is that 
what you testified?

A. Yes sir, it was dark. When my brother 
looked for him it was earlier than I did. He look­
ed in the store and out around the place and ask­
ed about him and we come to find out that we 
couldn’t find nothing of him, we all went out and 
looked for him.

Q. And you missed him about an hour before 
dark?

A. Yes sir (Tr. 156).

We have quoted copiously the testimony of 
two, Ransom McCullom and B. McCullom, of the 
three, Mrs. Lena McCullom, principal witnesses of

— 125.



the state to give the court their exact language to 
show, using slang, how both have slipped, slid and 
fenced trying in every conceivable way to avoid 
giving direct answers to questions propounded to 
them by defendant, and we challenge anyone to 
read and re-read their evidence from beginning to 
end and tell what they have testified to, so it is 
our opinion little if any credence can be placed on 
anything either has sworn. Select any point in their 
testimony, carefully analyze same and see if an in­
telligent conclusion can be reached. It is all 
vague, uncertain and shrouded in doubt. Who can 
say, basing his opinion upon the testimony of either 
or both, when Ransom McCullom returned from 
Hughes with freight, or who was in the store, or 
when Mrs. McCullom left for home, or whether or 
not Grady Swain was in the store, if so when, or 
when the Bell boy departed for the home of Mrs. 
McCullom, or when he returned with oil can, or 
when he returned with oil can to the home, or 
when he returned to the store after delivering oil 
and reported Julius was not at home, or when 
Julius was drowned, or when search for him began, 
or when Robert Bell purchased the candy, or 
whether or not he really did purchase it, all of these 
and many more as well as all other questions are 
totally surrounded in a halo of doubt and uncer­
tainty. The same is true respecting every word or

— 126—



movement made by B. McCullom and J. M. Camp­
bell, sheriff, respecting their movements, actions, 
conduct, confessions, when gotten, what was said 
and done. Who can put their finger on time con­
fessions were made, who was present and what was 
said to the boys. Can the court put its finger on 
anything definitely gotten from any one of these 
three witnesses and say this is certain.

It must be borne in mind that Robert Bell 
made no statement unless it was the so-called one 
A. P. Campbell claimed was made to him until he 
had been in the penitentiary walls a number of days. 
The sole and only testimony on this point came from 
Mr. J. M. Campbell, Mr. McCullom, Robert Bell 
and Grady Swain. Mr. Todhunter did not testify 
before the jury on this point so the state must re­
ly totally upon what was said by Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. B. McCullom of statements made by de­
fendant to them, so it will be necessary in order 
to reach the true state of facts to make an investi­
gation of what was done and said by these four 
persons before we can say whether or not the oral 
confession was free and voluntary, or extorted by 
fear or intimidations, and the onus was on the 
State to prove that no undue threats or treatment 
by word or action was resorted to by Mr. McCullom 
or Mr. Campbell, and if the confession was fairly 
traceable to a prohibited influence it should have

— 127—



been excluded and the court’s failure to do so was 
reversible error.

Mr. Campbell does not deny, directly or in­
directly, that he made the little Swain boy lie face 
downward on concrete jail floor in Forrest City 
and whipped him with a hamestring with a buckle 
on end in the presence and hearing of the Bell boy 
and Charles Henry, both of whom were standing 
within less than six feet looking through the oval 
12 by 18 inch opening in main jail door. Bell, 
Swain and Henry all specifically swear to these 
facts and Campbell does not attempt to refute one 
word of this evidence, nor did he deny that he 
cursed and abused the little Swain boy in presence 
and hearing of the Bell boy in jail in Forrest City, 
nor did he deny telling the Bell boy he was lying 
to him, nor does Campbell deny that this boy was 
handcuffed and taken to the walls and placed in 
a cell, nor that the body of Thomas was found and 
removed from the bayou in about 8 or 10 days af­
ter that of Julius was recovered, nor does he deny 
that this boy was immediately thereafter rushed 
under guard to the walls to avoid mob violence 
and delivered into the hands of the weilder of the 
long bTacksnake leather lash, nor does he deny that 
this boy was taken from cell, caused to remove 
his coat and made lie face downward on the con­
crete floor in walls and beaten with the peni-

— 128—



tentiary regulation convict No. 1 bull hide strap 
in the hands of the warden, who was at that time 
51 years of age, in perfect health with the strength 
of a lion, nor does he deny this boy was severely 
and inhumanely beaten by the blows administered 
during the first assault upon him by the warden 
leaving him in such pitiable condition he could 
neither lie nor sit, nor did he deny that whelps and 
bruises were left on this boy’s body as the result 
of this barbarous beating, nor did he deny at the 
fiasco of written confessions that this boy was made 
by his and McCullom’s agent, S. S. Hargraves, to 
remove every vestige of his clothing and expose 
his nudeness to the indecent and barbaric gaze of 
spectators, among whom was B. McCullom, nor did 
he deny that McCullom, Todhunter, Feitz and 
Hargraves made an examination of the body of 
this boy finding it covered with bruises, lacerations 
and whelps resulting partly if not wholly from 
first whipping, nor did he dare have Todhunter, 
McCullom, Feitz or Hargraves interrogated on this 
point notwithstanding all were on the stand except 
Hargraves and he was present during whole time 
of trial and taking part therein. Robert says these 
whelps were on his body, yet with all of the op­
portunity, even stripping him as naked as when 
he entered the world not one of them denied it.

— 129—



It is utterly impossible from the evidence given 
by Campbell to conclude the result of his testimony 
and to come to a clear conclusion what he said, 
heard, saw or did or what was done or said in his 
presence and hearing in the walls at the time he 
claims the confession of the Bell boy was made as 
practically every answer given by him is confound­
ed with, “ I think,” or, “ I don’t remember,” or, “ I 
don’t think,” or, “ I don’t think so,”  or, “ I think it 
was,” or, “ I think so, yes sir,” or, “ I don’t have 
any idea,” or, “ I think, maybe,” or, “ It might have 
been,” or, “ Something like that,”  or, “ I guess,” or, 
“ I don’t think I heard it all,”  or “ Something like 
that,” or, “ I don’t know whether,” or, “ I don’t think 
I said that,”  or, “ It might be almost,”  or, “ It sounds 
like,” or, “ Something like that,”  or, “ Maybe two 
or three days,”  or, “ I think three or four days,”  or, 
“ I don’t know,” or, “ I guess I made three trips,”  
or, “ I guess it must have been in the afternoon,” or, 
“ I feel that way,” or, “ I could be mistaken,” or, “ I 
am not sure about that.” These indefinite and 
similar uncertain statements were made by this 
gentleman to the tune of upwards of sixty times in 
a short direct and cross examination before the 
jury.

The drowning occurred Thursday, December 
29, 1927, Robert Bell was arrested on the morning 
of the 30th, placed and held in jail in Forrerst City

— 130—



for about ten days, then taken to the walls Satur­
day or Sunday, January 7th or 8th, Todhunter 
whipped Him Sunday, the 8th, that Campbell and 
McCullom were at the walls and talked to him 
without getting any kind of statement from him 
sometime during the second week of January, 
1928, so returned to the walls Sunday, January 
15th, at which time he was whipped by Todhunter, 
then and not until then, confessed. Campbell says, 
“ I saw him twice, the second time was when he told 
me what they admitted” (Tr. 299). Q. That was 
on Sunday; that second trip you made up there. 
A. Yes sir. Q. You don’t know what had been 
done to Bell prior to that time. A No sir. Q. You 
don’t know whether he had been whipped in the 
penitentiary walls or not? A. No sir. Q. That 

was on ounday ? A. Yes sir. Q. How many times 

did you see him whipped that day? A I don’t 

know that I saw him whipped that day (Tr. 300). 
Q. Do you know whether Todhunter had whipped 

that hoy before you and McCullom got this state­

ment about the money. A. No sir, there was no 

way for me to know. Q. Then so far as you are 

concerned he may have been whipped a half dozen 

times. A Yes sir, he may have, I don’t know, be­

cause he was in the penitentiary and I was at home; 

he was in the walls there (Tr. 302).

— 131—



Again on page 303 when interrogated by the 
court:

Q. You say this defendant made a confession 
to you that first trip you made? A. No sir, the • 
second trip. Q. What trip was it then that the 
defendant was whipped by Mr. Todhunter that you 
know of? A. I went over that; I THINK I MADE 
ANOTHER TRIP. Q. HOW MANY TRIPS DID 
YOU MAKE? A. I GUESS THAT MADE THREE 
TRIPS IN ALL, I MADE TWO WHEN I WAS TRY­
ING TO WORK THIS OUT.

It is not possible, basing your opinion on what 
the witness says, to come to but one conclusion and 
that is he was at the walls with Grady Swain at the 
time Robert Bell was brought there by his son 
which was the first trip, he and McCullom were at 
the walls during the second week in January which 
made the second trip and he and McCullom were 
again at the walls, Sunday, January 15th, making 
the third trip at which time Robert Bell was whip­
ped twice and after these two whippings and on 
the same day he confessed.

What does the witness mean saying, “ I 
GUESS I MADE THREE TRIPS, I MADE TWO 
TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT.” The answer is 
when Bell was carried to the walls, the first trip; 
when he and McCullom were at walls during second

— 132—



■week in January, but were unable to secure any­
thing from the boy in way of a confession so they 
returned Sunday, January 15, 1928, to again try 
to force a confession out of Robert but again he re-%
fused to confess but after the trusted cowhide was 
brought out and applied to his bare back he then 
and not until then confessed anything they wished.

This gentleman in one breath says young 
Bell wyas whipped before he confessed, in another 
breath immediately following says he was not and 
in a third he says he was whipped at time he con­
fessed and in another breath says he was not whip­
ped during the trip when confession was made. On 
page 273 he says he was whipped before confessing 
to him, but on page 274 says, “ I guess confession 
was before,”  and again on page 274 he is asked 
this question:

Q. So you don’t know whether Mr. Todhunter 
whipped him before or after you got the confession? 
A. No sir, I don’t.

During his examination he says he saw Mr. 
Todhunter whip this boy, again he says he did not 
and again says he does not remember whether he 
did or did not.

In instant trial he says the Bell boy was the 
one who twisted the sleeve of the jumper up under 
his arm and then stuck the little boy’s head under

— 133—



the water, but in former trial he testified that 
Grady Swain was the one who did this and admit­
ted in examination in absence of jury he so testi­
fied (Tr. 268).

We do not understand what this witness 
means by such expressions, “ W e worked out, the 
little details; how the boy’s socks were fastened.” 
(Tr. 269) ; “ W e wanted to work it out and did.”  
(Tr. 274). “ I worked those little details out while 
I was talking to him,” (Tr. 289). “ W e were fig­
uring it out, trying to work it out.” (Tr. 291). The 
“ we” consisted of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Todhunter.

Is the testimony of this witness worthy of be­
lief when he intentionally misstates facts or his 
mind is so weak or warped he cannot or will not 
tell the truth. Are we to believe a man when his 
mind is in such weakened or biased condition he 
cannot or will not do his sworn duty. A man who 
has sworn faithfully to perform his duty as sheriff 
yet wilfully violates every precept of both God and 
man by beating the little fourteen-year-old help­
less and innocent negro boy because the boy as he 
claims did not talk to suit him and a few days 
thereafter idly stands by and permits the warden 
to beat the Bell boy as though he were a worthless 
street cur dog, testifying once he did not see Bell 
whipped or if he did he did not know it, but when

— 134—



confronted by former testimony slips, slides, shys, 
and says he was not paying any attention. We will 
quote the worthy gentleman’s testimony in former 
trial which was introduced during instant trial:

“ Q. You whipped him simply to try to find 
out where to locate the money? A. I didn’t whip 
him. Q. You stood there and watched him whip­
ped? A. I wasn’t there all of the time. Q. Did 
you see Mr. Todhunter whip him? A . I saw him 
hit him. Q. How many times? A. Not many 
times, a few licks. Q. What did he hit him with? 
A. A strap. Q. What kind? A. A leather 
strap. Q. How long? A. I don’t know. Q. About 
how long? A. I would guess, about two feet. 
Q. Did it have a handle on it? A. I don’t know, 
I didn’t notice. Q. You saw it? A. I wasn’t 
paying any attention to it.”  Q. “ Now you stood by 
in the penitentiary walls, the sheriff of the county, 
and saw this whipping going on” (Tr. 301). This 
is the man who does not deny that he called the 
Bell boy out of jail and pulled him around, nor 
did he deny that he told Grady that he was lying 
to him (Tr. 473), nor did he deny that he made 
Charlie Henry give him the hamestring lash con­
sisting of three hamestrings tied together, nor did 
he deny that he took Grady to Brinkley and there 
put in jail and that he again took him out, ques- 
upon the return from Brinkley Grady was again

135—



put in jail and that he gain took him out, ques­
tioned him again and again whipped him, nor did 
he deny that all of the raving and charging was 
assisted in the drowning, nor did he deny that 
Charlie Henry was whipped two or three times in 
jail and very probably before Robert Bell, nor did 
he deny that all of the raving and charging was 
before Robert.

While Mr. Todhunter did not testify before 
the jury upon this point, nevertheless his testimony 
throws light upon this state of the case, so by per­
mission of the court we will quote his exact 
language:

Q. How long had he (Bell) been in the 
penitentiary walls before you whipped him the 
first time? A. I don’t remember, probably a day 
or two, or probably two or three days. Q. How 
long before you whipped him the second time. 
A. I have forgotten, a day or two, or two or three 
days after that, I don’t remember (Tr. 256).

Now I will ask you if you didn’t make this 
statement (Reading from record of former trial) :

“ Because I talked to him and just kept on 
talking to him until he finally told me, little by 
little, until he finally told it all. Q. What con­
dition did you have him in the first time? A. I made 
him lie down on the floor. Q. Did you make him

— 136



take off his coat? A. I don’t know whether I did 
or not, I expect I did if he had one on.” A. I 
think that is all correct so far as you read there.

“ Q. Did you make him take off his coat? 
A . I don’t know whether I did or not, I expect I 
did if he had one on. Q. On floor, there is where 
you poured it on him? A. Yes sir. Q. Where 
was the last time you whipped him? A. Right in 
the stockade. Q. Who was present when you
whipped him then? A. I kinder think Walter
Harris, the convict there and this little boy, I know 
about that, I got him out there and talked to him 
that evening and he kept— (Interrupted). Q. (Con­
tinued) I know about that, I got him out there and I 
was talking to him that morning and he kinder 
swelled up and I told him to get down and I hit 
him and he got up, and I called Walter Harrison
and told him to go and get the little negro and
tell him to come over there, and I made the little 
negro hold the negro’s head and I whipped him. 
Q. How often did you talk to him? A. Prob­
ably, every day or, probably every two or three 
days. Sometimes when I would have time I went 
and talked to the negro a solid hour, just him and 
me, a solid hour. Q. Was that before he con­
fessed? A. It was during the time he was con­
fessing. Q. You say you talked to him a solid hour 
at the time he was confessing? A. I have done

— 137—

\



that:- In this case, the morning I whipped him,—  
sometimes I would go over to the stockade and 
sometimes I would talk to him from the outside. 
There is a run-around around the stockade and 
sometimes I would go in there and talk to him. I 
have gone there lots of times. I expect I have got­
ten a thousand confessions.”  Is that correct?

A. In substance, yes sir.

Q. Isn’t that the exact language you used?

A. In substance, yes sir.

Q. Did you have Robert Bell in the peniten­
tiary? A. Yes sir. Q. I will ask you to tell the 
the jury whether or not these boys were put to­
gether or permitted to communicate with each 
other? A. They were not together but three times 
while they were in the penitentiary and I was with 
them all three times. Q. You say they didn’t talk 
about this case? A. Yes sir, they were not in 
speaking distance of each other . Q. Did you af­
terwards hear Robert Bell make a confession about 
this? A. Yes sir. Q. Did he make a free and 
voluntary confession about it or not? A. Well, I 
don’t know that I could say that Bell ever made a 
free and voluntary confession. I got a confession 
out of him, it was by piecemeal, it never was very 
free. Of course, he told it without any threats. 
There never was any voluntary confession coming

— 138—



from this big negro” (Tr. 257-259). Q. He never 
made a free and voluntary confession? A. He 
made a confession, I can’t say it was free and 
voluntary when I would get a little today and a 
little tomorrow, like that. Q. When you whipped 
him at the time to get it? A. I don’t think I 
whipped him. Q. At whose instance did you 
make these investigations? A. At the request of 
the sheriff of St. Francis County. Q. Did you get 
these statements by persistent questioning from 
time to time? A. Yes sir. Q. These whippings 
you gave him were based upon his failure to talk 
to you and answer questions when you propounded 
questions to him touching upon this mater as well 
as his conduct? A. Yes sir. Q. After this de­
fendant told you what he did about this confes­
sion, from time to time, to whom did you advise 
that confessions were made? A. Mr. Campbell. 
Q. The sheriff? A. Yes sir.

Mr.. McCullom must to have been exceedingly 
financially fortunate and indulgent to his son for a 
man who had a small cross-roads country store for 
the sale of pop corn, peanuts, candy, sardines,, 
knick-knaks, soda water and other soft and cold 
drinks and assuredly paid little or no attention to 
his business affairs to permit his eleven-year-old 
son to take sufficient sums of money from this store 
to be forced to carry it in his gum boots, in his

— 139—



pockets, in his lace boots, wrapped around his legs, 
in his under clothes, in his socks, tied to his sock 
supporters and safety pins and around the outside 
of his trouser legs as we have heretofore had wit­
nesses disclosing he carried money in all of these 
places and under all of these conditions but now 
comes L. D. Prewett, one of the five, A. H. David­
son, Will Thomas, German Jones and G. R. Smith, 
floating and migratory witnesses, who testified that 
Julius even had money wrapped around and on out­
side of his pants legs for Julius was and had for 
sometime prior thereto been wearing long pants 
but when he was on the front porch talking about 
and exhibiting his money to Elbert Thomas, a man 
now dead, in the presence of L. D. Prewett and 
Robert Bell he simply unlaced and turned back his 
boot tops but did not pull up his trousers hence 
money must to have been wrapped around and on 
outside of trouser legs.

It is clearly evident both Mr. Campbell and 
Mr. McCullom would go to the Bell boy and 
“ Throw Up,” as Mr. Mathes put it, that the Swain 
boy had confessed so and so and he had just as well 
confess to the same and then go to the little Swain 
boy and “ Throw Up” to him that the Bell boy had 
confessed to so and so, so he had just as well con­
fess to the same, see-sawing between the two boys. 
This is disclosed and admitted at the very inception

— 140—



and throughout the testimony of both Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. McCullom. Let us see what Mr. McCullom 
says:

Q. How long was this after Julius was 
drowned? A. I don’t know, it wasn’t long, about 
maybe, fifteen days (Oral confession to Campbell 
and McCullom.) Q. How many trips had you 
made to Little Rock? A. I made, I don’t know, I 
think I made one before that, I made two trips with 
Mr. Campbell, the sheriff, or three. Q. This was 
during the second trip that he made the confession? 
A. He confessed to us on the second trip.

It was 17 days from the day Julius accidentally 
drowned until the date of oral confession on January 
15th, 1928, which was gotten on Sunday, the sec­
ond trip and at which time Robert was whipped so 
severely.

“ He (Campbell) told him that Grady Swain 
confessed and he wanted him to tell the truth” and 
“ He wanted him to tell the truth so we could know 
whether he was telling the same thing the other 
boy told.”

Q. The second time you came back you told 
him he had made a misstatement about the money 
and he whipped him over the money.

A. Yes sir, he told him if he didn’t tell where 
the money was he was going to whip him again.

— 141—



I wrote back one time, I wrote in place of going-, 
that I tried to find where the money was and 
didn’t find it, I don’t know whether he whipped 
him or not (Tr. 283).

“ Yes sir, I and Mr. Campbell both talked to 
him about it” and “ Yes sir, he come right out and 
told it.”

Q. I will ask you to tell the jury what he said 
about it? A. Well, I told him I wanted him to 
make a statement so we might know, the other boy 
had confessed and we wanted to see if he could 
tell the same thing.”

“ He said that in making a statement, he said, 
‘Well, I done it!’ I said, ‘Robert, why did you do 
this, anyhow,’ and he said,‘I am 20 years old and 
I hadn’t killed anybody and I needed twenty dollars 
to get a suit of clothes and I learned that boy had 
money on him and I wanted it to get a suit of 
clothes.’ ” (Tr. 326).

“ He said he took the pocketbook and gave it 
back to Grady in the other end of the boat and 
Grady took a five dollar bill out of it and handed it 
to him and he gave it back to the negro and he 
dropped it in one of his pockets, he didn’t know 
which, then, he went to dip water out of the 
boat he pushed him in back and went head end

— 142—



into the water and he didn’t come up but once.”
(Tr. 327).

“ I tried to ask him about the boots and he 
said he had on leather boots, ‘He didn’t have on 
rubber boots,’ I said, ‘He had on leather boots, 
what did you do with them?’ He said, ‘He didn’t,’ 
I said, ‘I know you are lying about it because I 
bought him some and I know he had them on that 
morning.’ He said, ‘He had on rubber boots.’ ”  
That is what we found, I found the leather boots un­
der the counter, he changed that day and I didn’t 
know it. (Tr. 328).

Q. In talking to him he said he had on gum 
boots?

A. I didn’t believe it hardly, and I said, “ I 
have the other facts and I don’t believe that and I 
want to know the truth of it.” He said, ‘That is 
the truth, when you find them you will find rubber 
boots.” I insisted, I thought he sold them 
and I would find them as evidence in this case, 
that is the reason I wanted to find the leather 
boots. I found them under the counter, the boy 
had changed at the store (Tr. 328).

“ He said, ‘I can tell if you want me to, when 
you find them you will find rubber boots.’ ”

“ I asked him about that, because the other boy 
confessed and I wanted to see, and I said, ‘Robert,

— 143



do you remember how his socks were fastened up?”  
and he said, “ One of them, the best I can remember, 
had a supporter on it, on one leg and a safety pin 
on the other that held the socks up.”  (Tr. 329).

Q. Lying on the concrete floor? A. I don’t 
know whether it was a concrete floor or plank, I 
didn’t pay any attention. Q . He was lying face 
down? A. Part of the time. Q. Mr. Todhunter 
gave it to him pretty heavy, didn’t he? A. HE 
DIDN’T BEAT HIM UNMERCIFULLY, I DON’T 
THINK, HE WHIPPED HIM. Q. HE DIDN’T 
HAVE ANYTHING ON BUT A PAIR OF SHOES, 
AND A JUMPER AND OVERALLLS? A. I 
DON’T REMEMBER ABOUT THE JUMPER. 
Q. Was that the only time you ever saw him whip­
ped? A. Yes sir, Mr. Todhunter says, “ You keep 
lying about where this money was put, I am going 
to whip you; and he whipped him. He said, “ I will 
tell it now,” and he got up and I said, “ Be sure and 
tell the facts, if I come back any more you will get 
another whipping and I don’t want to see you beat 
up any more.” Q. This was soon after he was 
taken over there? A. It might have been the 
second trip; the second trip, I think, he confessed 
to me, I don’t know how long he had been over 
there (Tr. 254).

Mr. Campbell says:

Q. How long had he been in Little Rock be-

— 144—



ford you had the conversation with him? A. I 
think I went back right away. Q. One day or two 
days? A. Maybe, three or four. Q. Three or 
four days, that would make 13 days after the 29th 
of December; did he confess, then, to you? A. Not 
the first trip. Q. How long before you went back? 
A. Three or four days. Q. Add three or four 
days to 13 days makes 17 days? A. Yes sir.
Q. He confessed to you then? A. Yes sir.
Q. 17 days after the boys were accidentally drown­
ed was when this confession was gotten out of him? 
A. Something along then, something like 17 days, 
yes sir. (Tr. 272).

Sunday, the 15th day of January, 1928, is ex­
actly 17 days after December 29, 1927, which is the 
Sunday Robert was whipped and then confessed.

The State has placed great stress on the fact 
that the Bell boy who had been the close personal 
friend, associate and companion of Julius for four 
or five years and had played with him in and 
around the store that afternoon should know that 
Julius had on gum boots that afternoon and that 
same is true as to the supporters and safety pin. 
Robert very probably on account of his long and 
close personal association with Julius knew more 
than his mother about Julius’ clothes, he undoubted­
ly knew every neck tie, every pair of socks, every 
pair of stockings, every pair of pants, every coat,

— 145—



every shirt, every undershirt, every pair of draw­
ers, every pair of garters, every supporter, every 
safety pin and very likely every handkerchief own­
ed by Julius, for he was at his home, in the same 
room with, and very likely saw Julius dress and 
undress the whole of Christmas and for four long 
preceeding years, so is there anything strange or 
wonderful about his knowing that Julius had on 
Rubber boots, one safety pin and one supporter. 
We unhesitatingly think not, nor would any other 
reasonable person. It is well known that when two 
boys closely associate one with the other each 
knows what the other wears— knows every article, 
age and condition. But another remarkable thing 
arises at this point and that is, that Mr. McCullom 
would have the affrontery to say that he thought 
Julius had on lace boots at the time he drowned 
when 17 or more days had intervened between 
death of Julius and date of confession and during 
all of this time he and his brother Ransom, had 
been looking for the lace boots, had little Garvin 
Swain and others at the store trying to make them 
confess they knew where the boots were, both B. 
and Ransom in the store, daily and nightly, lace 
boots setting under the counter within a few feet 
of them, yet he had the audacity to pretend he 
thought until the second “ FREE AND VOLUNTARY 
CONFESSION” was made his little boy had on lace

— 146—



boots, but this is not all and we will see what 
Ransom McCullom says relative to the lace and 
rubber boots.

Q. You found no socks at all did you? A. No 
sir, I didn’t find them. Q. You paid no attention 
to his socks? A. After they found them. Q. I 
mean what the child had on at the time he left; 
Isn’t that what you testified to before, that you paid 
no attention? A. I said I seen him putting his 
socks on, and I saw his socks on him when he 
changed boots. Q. What time of day did he 
change? A. That morning when I went to Hughes. 
Q. Did he stay at the store at night, or that night, 
or at home? A. At home. Q. So, you were not 
at the house when he changed? A. His boots 
were down at the store. He changed boots down 
at the store. Q. He left home and you didn’t know 
what he had on when he left home and come down 
to the store? A. HE CHANGED HIS BOOTS UP 
THERE BY ME. Q. What did he take off? A. A 
pair of leather boots like these there. Q. What 
time of day did he make the change? A. I just 
told you just now. It was before I went to Hughes, 
somewhere about twelve o’clock, I reckon. Q. You 
paid no attention any further than you saw him 
change his boots? (Tr. 146). A. I saw him pull 
off his leather boots and he was looking at his 
leather boots that he pulled off and he put on a

— 147—



pair of gum boots (Tr. 147). Both B. and Ransom 
McCullom were in the store and within a few 
feet of the lace boots. Ransom knew these 
boots were there, hence do we not know he told B. 
McCullom all about these boots and B. McCullom 
knew all the time they were there, then why was 

he acting the part of a hypocrite pretending he 
thought Julius had on lace boots?

Another incident arises at this point which 
will be well to notice, and that is, Ransom Mc­
Cullom says:

“ I seen him putting his socks on, and I saw his 
socks on him when he changed” and, “ He chang­
ed his boots up there by me,”  and, “ It was just be­
fore I went to Hughes, somewhere about twelve 
o’clock I reckon (Tr. 146) and on page 155 this 
same witness says:

Q. And that was when he bought something?

A. The first time when he come back in the 
store after he left— when I had come back from 
Hughes, and he left and come back. —  If you 
want me to, I will tell you the reason I noticed (I 
noticed) about his buying something, was because 
he had a little old watch on pawn for fifty cents; 
I told him he had pawned it and I told him— he 
was buying some trash or something, and I told him 
that he had better try to save his money and get

— 148—



his watch out. He said. “ I AIN’T GOT BUT A 
NICKLE, AND I WILL SPEND IT.” (Tr. 155).

It is clear that Julius right by the side of Ran­
som McCullom in broad daylight changed both his 
boots and socks at twelve o’clock that day and 
Ransom and he looked at the boots and socks, no 
money was in the boots, no money was in the socks, 
Ransom saw him puttting on his socks,“Up there 
beside me” and Robert had made two trips to the 
home of Mrs. McCullom, having ridden upwards of 
one and one-half miles between 3:30 and 4:00 
o’clock, had assisted Mrs. McCullom with her churn­
ing, yet by this same witness it is clearly and 
specifically disclosed that, “ Until near about sun­
down” (Tr. 155) this poor, misrepresented and 
abused boy was in the store buying a stick of 
candy with the only five cents on earth the poor 
thing had, and, “ I AIN’T GOT BUT A NICKLE, 
AND I WILL SPEND IT.” (Tr. 155).

Mr. Campbell and Mr. B. McCullom were to­
gether at the penitentiary walls for the same pur­
pose of securing the confession, hence we have 
quoted to a considerable extent what was said there 
to call the attention of the court to the variance be­
tween what Mr. Campbell reports and what Mr. 
McCullom reports to this court as a result of the 
conference with the Bell boy. Mr. Campbell says 
nothing about the pocketbook, nor nothing about

— 149—



Robert saying he was 20 years of age, nor noth­
ing about a suit of clothes, nor nothing about 
Robert saying he had learned Julius had 
money, nor nothing about Robert needing $20.00, 
nor nothing about four boys being in the boat, nor 
nothing about Elbert giving his pocketbook back to 
Robert, nor nothing about statements as to the 
candy, nor nothing as to statement to A. P. Camp­
bell, nor nothing about either gum nor leather 
boots, nor nothing about pulling Julius’ shoes off, 
nor nothing about Robert saying he had never 
killed anybody and many other things told by Mc- 
Cullom.

Campbell admitted he testified in former 
trial that it was Grady Swain who told him that he 
wrapped his sweater around Julius’ legs, in instant 
trial he says it was Robert Bell who told him he 
did this. He used the word sweater but McCullom 
says nothing at all about a sweater, but says Robert 
said he wrapped" his coat around Julius’ feet.

“ He said he took the pocketbook and gave it 
back to Grady in the other end of the boat and 
Grady took a five-dollar bill out of it and handed 
it to him and he gave it back to the negro and he 
dropped it in one of his pockets, he didn’t know 
which, then, when he went to dip water out of the 
boat he pushed him in the back and he went head

150—



end into the water and he didn’t come up but once” 
(Tr. 327).

An analysis of this statement will disclose that 
Elbert Thomas, a man in his 19th year, strong, ro­
bust, active, healthy and without rhyme, rythm 
or uttering one word of protest, asking one 
question or offering an objection at the mere 
request of a boy who was younger, much smaller 
and greatly weaker, took from his pocket his 
pocketbook and money, gave it to Robert who in 
turn handed it to Grady Swain, another small boy, 
who, in the presence of both Thomas and Julius 
opened the pocketbook, extracted five dollars there­
from, closed the pocketbook, returned same to 
Thomas, during all of this time Thomas, Julius, 
Robert and Grady being in a boat and Thomas 
quietly, peacefully, and without one word of ob­
jection, one word of protest, without anger, dis­
turbance, resentment or interposing an iota put the 
pocketbook in his pocket. No knife, no gun, no 
stick, no force, no outcry, no scuffling, no wrest­
ling, all in the presence and reach of Julius who 
does nor says absolutely nothing. No one gave an 
alarm, offers no resistance, makes no effort to 
escape, no protest or objection nor request, nor 
advice. Both stand meekly and submissively 
by. When all of these wonderful, unheard of, 
unbelievable and unthinkable things are con-

— 151—



eluded within speaking distance and practically 
within the presence of Julius’ mother, father, uncle, 
brothers and sisters, neighbors, friends, in and in 
front of, around the store and passing up and down 
and to and fro over the public highway and being 
in and around the garage, “ When he went to dip 
water out of the boat he pushed him in the back 
and he went head end into the water and he didn’t 
come up but once.” Then only three boys were in 
the boat, Julius between 11 and 12 years of age, 
vigorous, robust, weighing between 75 and 80 
pounds, “ Excellent swimmer,” “ Could do most any 
kind of work,” “ Mighty strong for his age,” Robert 
Bell and Grady Swain were left in the small 14-16 
by 414-foot boat. This “ Excellent swimmer” “ Could 
do most any kind of work” and “ Mighty strong for 
his age,” boy without resistance, or request or an 
entreaty or an outcry, or an alarm, or a scuffle, or 
tearing his clothes, or ripping his clothes, or his 
pockets, in hearing of his father, mother, uncle, 
neighbors, and friends, submissively, peacefully, 
and quietly permits himself to be searched, robbed, 
and drowned by his four-year boon companion, 
associate, playmate and friend.

It is strange to us that Elbert Thomas who 
was much stronger, stouter, older and weighed 
more than the Bell boy, in the presence and reach 
of Julius, would suffer himself to be robbed and

— 152—



drowned by the Bell boy and in the presence of 
Julius, yet neither he or Julius said one word, utter­
ed one protest, offered one objection, gave one out­
cry, cried or called for assistance yet within hear­
ing of the father, mother, brother and sisters, uncle, 
of Julius, and customers going in and coming out 
of the store and also within 80 or 90 steps of the 
most public and traveled highway in Eastern Ar­
kansas. Again how did these two boys drown 
Thomas and Julius without the small 14-16 foot 
boat being capsized or either getting wet or his 
clothes or pockets torn or his pockets or clothes rip­
ped or pockets turned partly or wholly inside out. 
They were so money thirsty and so ravenous for 
money that they even removed and searched 
Julius’ boots, removed and searched his socks, pull­
ed up and searched his trouser legs for money and 
could and did describe most minutely, and made a 
most scrutinous and searching examination of his 
underclothes so much so they could and did “Free­
ly and vountarily” confessed that one sock was 
fastened to his union suit with safety pin and the 
other sock was fastened to his union suit with a 
supporter, nevertheless Julius had on long pants. 
Why were they making the careful and close in­
vestigation, what reason or motive prompted them 
for all this painstaking, close and minute search 
and investigation for when the bodies were removed 
both had money in his pockets.

— 153—



While it is true Mr. Campbell and Mr. Mc- 
Cullom say the confession of the Bell boy accord­
ing to their idea of freeness and voluntariness was 
free and voluntary, Mr. Todhunter in whose cus­
tody the Bell boy had been in continuously since his 
incarceration in a cell in the penitentiary walls 
also says that “ I don’t know that I can say that Bell 
ever made a free and voluntary confession, I got a 
confession out of him; it was by piecemeals, it never 
was very free and voluntary, of course, he told it 
without any threats, there never was anything vol­
untary coming from the big negro.” It is conceded 
by all parties as testified to by Robert Bell, Grady 
Swain and Mr. Todhunter that Robert was whipped 
almost immediately after he was placed in the 
penitentiary walls which was about the 6th or 7th 
of January, and on the 8th, which was Sunday, he 
was whipped by Mr. Todhunter with a bull hide 
in the stockade which was beyond all peradventure 
or doubt prior to and antedated any conversations 
had or visits to him by either Mr. Campbell or Mr. 
McCullom; this whipping and the date thereof is 
not denied by a human being; up until this date he 
had made no statements except those denying any 
connection with the surmized drowning. Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. McCullom were at the walls 
sometime during the second week of January and 
after Robert had been whipped endeavoring to se-

— 154—



cure a confession from him but he maintained that 
he was innocent and they returned to the walls on 
the following Sunday which was the 15th of 
January at which time he was severely beaten by 
Mr. Todhunter and after which, but on the same 
day, it is claimed he made the oral statements to 
Mr. Campbell and Mr. McC’ullom which were ad­
mitted at the trial of this case.

It is our earnest and most sincere belief and 
contention that this boy made no voluntary oral 
statement. We admit there is no hard and fast 
rule to determine whether or not a confession is 
free and voluntary; however it is the duty of the 
court in determing whether or not a confession is 
free and voluntary, to look to the whole situation 
and surroundings of the accused such as his age- 
strength or weakness of his intellect, the manner 
and place in which he was questioned, the fact that 
he is confined in jail, penitentiary walls and cells, 
the fact that he has been whipped and beaten in 
the presence of the officer who has him in charge, 
has seen other prisoners whipped by the same 
officer to whom he confesses, had been whipped in 
the presence of the father of deceased boy to whom 
he also confesses at the same time, that he had been 
sweated down and sweated down, time after time, 
again and again by the father and same officers, 
that they were negro boys in hands and custody of

— 155—



merciless white officers, in the absense of his 
father, mother, mother, relatives and friends, 
among strangers, in a foreign land, surrounded by 
the most desperate criminals, in the second grade 
in school and an orphan.

THE COURT: I will not admit these written
confessions, but I think there is nothing wrong with 
the one made to Mr. Campbell. The court is in­
clined to let Mr. Campbell’s statement go in, but 
his statement and the negro witnesses’s statement 
will be the only ones that go in.

MR. LANIER: I believe it is necessary at this
place to object to the court permitting the testimony 
of Mr. Campbell.

MR. R. D. CAMPBELL: I want to save an excep­
tion here to the holding of the court that the testi­
mony of Mr. Campbell is admissible as a confession, 
on the examination which has been had in the ab­
sence of the jury and in the presence of the court 
(Tr. 279).

MR. CAMPBELL: We desire to save our
exceptions to the ruling of the court with respect 
to the confession said to have been made to Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. McCullom, as a free and volun­
tary one; that it isn’t free and voluntary and it was 
made under the influence that had been used in 
the original confession (Tr. 284).

— 156



MR. CAMPBELL: The defendant objects
to the introduction of McCullom’s testimony as to 
the confession for the reason as already shown, 
and the objection is overruled and the defendant 
excepts. (Tr. 355).

It is conceded the record contains some evi­
dence by the colored witness, A. P. Campbell, that 
Robert on the horse going from the store to the 
home of Campbell stated to him that he and Grady 
drowned Julius and Elbert, however, we do not 
concede the evidence to be true but on the con­
trary it is our honest opinion every word is false. 
The actions and conduct of this witness shows he 
had been tutored and drilled, if not why would he 
testify, “ I can’t remember, I might say the wrong 
thing, I don’t remember now,”  (Tr. 125), and, “ If I 
go to explain it, I might tell you somethnig wrong.” 
(Tr. 127). These answers show this ignorant 
negro had been coached by some unscruplous 
scoundrel. Why was he afraid, “ I might say the 
wrong thing,” or, “ If I go to explain I will tell 
something wrong?” The answer is he knew those 
who had taught him what to say were in the court­
room, if not their emissaries were, and if he did not 
tell it precisely as he was told and taught may 
God have mercy upon his poor back when he re­
turned to Greasy Corner. He well knew the good 
old faithful hamestrings were ready, wiling and

— 157—



anxious for action. He certainly knew his old 
boss, Smalley, was there. He without doubt knew 
his old companions, the McCulloms, were there. 
He necessarily knew the gasoline expert, Joe Cox, 
was there and he, from personal experience, knew 
the faithful law enforcer and efficient sheriff was 
there, too. He knew what he had been brought 
there to testify to. He knew what he had been 
told to say and he knew if he failed, his back 
would be covered with whelps.

How natural from the operation of the human 
mind would it be for the man, Campbell, and 
Robert Bell both of whom had been at the store 
for upwards of two hours after the recovery of the 
body of Julius, hearing the McCulloms and others 
for some unknown reason accusing Elbert Thomas 
of drowning Julius, to be conversing relative the 
drowning for Robert to say as he testified he said, 
“ Elbert had done a mighty bad thing.”  Beyond 
all peradventure both, forming his opinion upon 
what had been said and done at the store, thought 
Elbert had drowned Julius, and as a sequence were 
talking about the drowning but for Robert without 
rhyme or rythm to “ Blurt” out that he and Grady 
did the drowning is unnatural, unthinkable and un­
believable. Robert no doubt heard threats against 
Elbert should he be apprehended. A colored boy 
of even ten years of age knew the populace would

158



deal severely with him if it only knew he tool, part 
in the drowning, hence can we persuade ourselves 
to believe this boy would make such a statement 
knowing it probably would mean death to him.

A person with the intellect of an ordinary 
mediocre five-year-old child would know that the 
man and the three boys could not scuffle and 
wrestle in a 14-16 by 41,4-foot boat without capsiz­
ing it or precipitating into the water on account 
of its rocking on the water, but the “ Free and vol­
untary confession” says, “ When he went to dip up 
water out of the boat he pushed him in the back 
and he went head end into the water and he didn’t 
come up but once.” (Tr. 327). Consider the situa­
tion, these boys and a man in a small boat on the 
water, the man quietly, complacently and undis­
turbedly extracts his pocketbook from his pocket 
delivers it to the Bell boy at the mere suggestion of 
the boy whom he could have turned across his 
knee with one hand and spanked, who hands same 
to a much smaller boy who in the presnce and 
reach of this man and Julius extracts his money, 
then returns the pocketbook to the man who, with­
out saying one word, uttering one protest or mak­
ing one motion, begins to dip water out of the boat, 
is pushed overboard and three boys actually stand 
and w-atch him struggling in the water until he 
comes up once, none of them say one word or

— 159—



make one move when the man in the last throes of 
death is struggling for his life and Julius an active, 
X’obust, stout swimmer standing, watching and realiz­
ing what is transpiring says not one word, gives no 
alarm, cries for no help or does one thing to escape 
or protect himself. And he held, “ His head under 
water and strangled him and pulled his boots off 
to get his money out of his boots” (Tr. 328), and 
“ He got Elbert in the boat and dashed up water 
out of the boat and he got his pocketbook, he took 
five dollars out of it and gave it back to him and 
he put it back in his pocket” (Tr. 326) and after­
wards Grady and Robert caught, lifted up and 
scuffled and wrestled with Julius in the boat, 
wrapped a jumper around his feet, “ They stuck 
the little boy’s head (He weighs between 75 and 80 
pounds) down under the water and strangled him 
and laid him back down in the bottom of the boat 
and pulled his boots off and his socks off and 
shook the boots” (Tr. 287). Not only a lunatic 
would not believe this nonsense but an idiot would 
not.

Conceding which we do not, that Robert made 
the statement to A. P. Campbell and his testimony 
was admissible but if the testimony of McCullom 
and Campbell as to the confession made to them 
by Robert in the walls was not free and voluntary 
so inadmissible or vice versa then we have both

— 160



competent and incompetent confessions before the 
jury which being the case, did the jury base its 
verdict upon what was said to A. P. Campbell or 
what was said to Campbell and McCullom or upon 
what was said to all.

It is our convictions that if the court should 
find the so-called confession to Campbell and Mc­
Cullom was not free and voluntary then this case 
should be reversed even though it should find the 
Bell boy made the statement attributed to him by 
A. P. Campbell, for the reason as above stated 
that it is utterly impossible for the court to know 
upon which of the two confessions the jury found­
ed its verdict. Did the jury believe A. P. Camp­
bell and base its findings or a part of its findings 
upon what he testified or did it wholly disregard 
what he said and base its findings, or a part of its 
findings, upon the testimony of Campbell and Mc­
Cullom as to the confession claimed to have been 
made to them in the walls. There is no possible 
way for the court to differentiate nor tell which of 
the two confessions it believed and founded its 
verdict.

It was not denied but conceded by all parties 
that defendant was whipped by the warden prior 
to the first trip of Campbell and McCullom to the 
walls, Robert says he was, Grady says Robert was

161—



and Todhunter says he was; neither Campebll nor 
McCullom was present, Campbell was in Forrest 
City and McCullom at Greasy Corner and the boy 
in the walls in Little Rock, nor was it denied but 
conceded that Todhunter had time after time, time 
and again sweated this boy down, quizzed and 
persistently and continuously without let or hind­
rance, hours at a time, talked and tried to make 
him confess without success, nor was it denied but 
conceded that Mr. Campbell whipped, abused and 
cursed the little Swain boy in the presence and 
hearing of defendant before a statement was got­
ten out of him, then can it possibly be said the con­
fession was not fairly traceable to these prohibited 
influences. This much has not been denied but all 
conceded, and it is the earnest opinion of the writers 
of this brief that the defendant was whipped on 
the second trip of Campbell and McCullom before 
the confesssion on that date.

It is said in Dewein vs. State, 114 Ark. 481: 
“ It has been said no general rule can be formulated 
for determining when a confession is voluntary be­
cause the character of the inducement held out to 
a person must depend very much upon the circum­
stances of each case when threats of harm, promise 
of favor or benefit, infliction of pain, a show of 
violence or inquisitorial methods are used to ex­
tract a confession, then the confession is attributed

162—



to such influence,” and, “ In determining whether a 
confession is voluntary or not, the court should look 
to the whole situation and surroundings of the 
accused. Hence it is proper to consider his age, 
the strength of his intellect, the manner in which 
he is questioned, the fact that he is in jail and 
everything with the situation.”

It is said in the case of Greenwood vs. State, 
107 Ark. 568, “ A confession of guilt to be admis­
sible must be free from the taint of official induce­
ment proceeding from either defendant’s hope or 
fear; and a confession to be admissible must be 
voluntary and made in the absence of threat of in­
jury or promise of reward and made in the absence 
of any influence which might swerve him from the 
truth.”

It is said in Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 386, “ Con­
fessions are not admissible against a party charged 
with a crime unless freely and voluntary made and 
the onus is on the state to prove them of this char­
acter.”

It is said in Young vs. State, 50 Ark. 540, 
“ The well established rule is, that confessions of 
guilt to be admissible, must be free from taint of 
official inducement proceeding from either flat­
tery of hope or the torture of fear.”

It is said in case of Corley vs. State, 50 Ark.

— 163



303, “ The rule is established in this state in accord 
with the unvarying current of authority elsewhere, 
that a confession of guilt to be admissible, must be 
free from flattery of hope or torture of fear.” The 
court in the same case said, “ If the confession is 
fairly traceable to the prohibited influence the 
trial judge should exclude it. (Love vs. State, 22 
Ark. 336) and his failure to do so is error for which 
the judgment may be reversed.”

Austin vs. State, 14 Ark 555.

Meyer vs. State  ̂ 19 Ark 156.

Butler vs. State, 34 Ark. 480.

Ford vs. State, 34 Ark. 649.

It is said in Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 399, “ In 
Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 305, Chief Justice Cock- 
rill, speaking for the court said: ‘Whether or not 
a confession is voluntary is a mixed question of law 
and fact to be determined by the court. It is the 
duty of the trial court to decide the facts upon 
which the admissibility of the evidence depends, and 
his finding is conclusive upon appeal as in other 
cases where he discharges the functions of a jury. 
Runnell vs. State, 28 Ark. 121; 1 Greenleaf Ev. 
Sec. 219. The conclusion to be drawn from the 
facts is a question of law and is reviewable by the 
appellant court. If the confession is faily traceable 
to the prohibited influence, the trial judge should

— 164—



exclude it, and his failure to do so is error for 
which the judgment may be reversed.”

“ When once a confession under improper in­
fluence is obtained the presumption arises that a 
subsequent confession of the same crime followed 
from that influence (Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 336) ; 
but this presumption may be overcome by positive 
proof showing that the subsequent confession was 
given free from that or any other such influence.”

“ If there is any worldly advantage or physical 
harm threatened or done the confession must be ex­
cluded.”

It is again said in Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 
305, “ When the improper influence has been ex­
erted it must be shown by the state that it has been 
removed before a subsequent confession is admis­
sible.”

It is said in case of Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 
399, “ When once a confession under improper 
influence is obtained the presumption arises that a 
subsequent confession of the same crime flows 
from that influene.”

Mr. Greenleaf says: “ In the absence of any 
such circumstances, the influence of the motives 
proved to have been offered will be presumed to 
continue, and to have produced the confession, un-

— 165—



less the contrary is shown by clear evidence, and 
the confession will therefore be rejected.”

I. Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 221 (15th Ed.)

It is obvious that if a confession is obtained by 
such methods as make it involuntary all subsequent 
confessions while accused is under the operation of 
the same influence are also involuntary.

Mackmaster vs. State, 82 Miss. 459.

Johnson vs. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rept. 423.

Thompson vs. Com. 20 Gratt. 724.

When once a confession under improper influ­
ence is obtained the presumption arises that a sub­
sequent confession of the same crime flows from 
the same influence.

Com. vs. Sheets, 179 Pa. 69.

Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 387.

People vs State, 41 Cal. 452.

State vs. Needham, 79 N. C. 474.

The burden is on the state to show that the 
improper influence has been removed.

Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 308

1. Greenleaf Ev. (15th. Ed) Sec. 219

Runnell vs. State, 28 Ark. 121.

— 166—



“ The conclusion to be drawn from the facts is 
a question of law and is reviewable by the appellate 
court”  and,

“ If the confession is fairly traceable to the pro­
hibited influence the trial court should exclude it.”

Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 336.

State vs. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116. 
and, “ And his failure to do so is error for which 
the judgment may be reversed.”

“ A confession of a defendant unless made in 
open court will not warrant a conviction unless ac­
companied with other proof that such offense was 
committed.

C. & M. Digest Sec. 3182.

“ A defendant in a criminal case cannot be con­
victed on statements made out of court if he denies 
the commission of the offense in court, unless such 
crime is proved by other competent testimony tend­
ing to establish his guilt, and connect him with the 
crime.

Melton vs. State, 43 Ark. 367.

Greenwood vs. State, 107 Ark. 58.

Davis vs. State, 115 Ark. 566.

Clayborn vs. State, 115 Ark. 378.

Defendant most strenuously denied committing

— 167—



the crime or having any connection with it.

In instant case no crime is proven but only the 
death of Julius and Elbert. No one attempts to say 
that defendantt did the killing, if in fact they were 
killed at the hands of any one unless it be by the 
slimy testimony of the “ sleuth-hound” and “ no 
rounder” German Jones whose evidence we do not 
believe a rational man would believe. Before a 
confession will convict, uncorroborated, it must be 
made in open court.

Hirshaw vs. State, 94 Ark. 343.

Hubbard vs. State, 77 Ark. 126.

We have not the remotest proof that Julius 
McCullom or Elbert Thomas were drowned much less 
by defendant except confession and the testimony 
of German Jones. No money, no jewelry, no trink­
ets, no clothes nor anything whatsoever has been 
traced from either of deceased, or the boat or bayou 
or anywhere thereabouts to defendant or Grady 
Swain personally or any place through them or that 
they knew anything about the whereabouts of 
same. No blood stains, no tracks, no impressions, 
no finger prints, no hair, no scratches, no scars, no 
bruises, no socks, no boots, no safety pins, no sup­
porters, no pocketbook, no gold, no silver, no bills, 
no coppers, no nothing directly, indirectly, present­
ly or inferentially or remotely discloses a connec-

— 168—



tion between defendant or Swain and deceased nor 
any connection with or surrounding deceased, boat 
01 bayou. With all of the hue, cry, slashing, beat­
ing, trips, quizzing, questioning, sweat dungeons, 
“ throwing up to” , hamestrings, cow hide, beating 
and knocking, nothing has been traced to or from 
the deceased or Elbert Thomas to either of the two 
boys.

The Bell boy was in the store that night in the 
presence of Ransom and B. McCullom, Joe Cox, G. R. 
Smith, Will Thomas and others, the acting coroner 
and coroner’s jury the following morning as well as 
Grady Swain, so if any one of these parties suspect­
ed either of these boys why did they not make an 
investigation. The boys were present under arrest. 
They knew the tracks were in the wet mud and 
across the pasture and the sizes of them, they had 
the boys before them and saw and knew the sizes 
of their shoes. There is absolutely no evidence 
showing the tracks of a human being leading from 
the bayou.

It is our most earnest and candid opinion that 
Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas were accident­
ally drowned, every fact and movement point direct­
ly to this conclusion. The traps were across the 
bayou, the water had been high, receded and the 
more it receded the more of boat which had not been

- 169-



used for sometime would be out of the water and 
upon the bank. The water was muddy so as it re­
ceded more and more the boat was out of the water 
and upon the bank of bayou, more and more sedi­
ment formed and settled around that part of boat 
on bank making it more and more difficult to re­
lease and push it into the water. It is well known 
and almost axomatic to everyone who has used 
boats that when two or more are together for the 
purpose of and do use same for business or pleasure 
that when one end is grounded on bank of river, 
lake or bayou, with sediment accumulated around 
same the first thought or impulse, yea almost the 
law of nature is for one to enter and go to back end 
of boat so as to force the bank end down by his 
weight, transfer the center of gravity from the mid­
dle to back end thus causing the rear end to be 
more, and front end less, submerged that it may be 
more easily released and pushed or shoved into the 
water.

Thomas being much the larger and heavier of 
the two, he was the one who made the big muddy 
tracks on back seat or cross piece and his weight 
shifted the center of gravity to the back end. Prior 
to getting into the boat they were at the brow, un­
fastened the rope or chain holding the boat, shoved 
or pushed it loose from the sediment, both entered, 
Thomas standing on the seat where the big fresh

170—



muddy tracks were left, Julius in front end or mid­
dle, one of them had one end of paddle in his hands 
with reverse end in the water or against the bank 
trying to push the boat off and into water, the pad­
dle slipped or one, probably both Julius and Elbert 
moved, boat lurched to one side, Thomas was pre­
cipitated out of boat into the water, he could not 
swim, Julius removed his loose fitting gum boots, 
slid or placed one foot on side of and jumped off of 
side of boat into the water to assist or rescue Thomas 
and his weight being on side of boat caused that side 
to submerge into or dip water, so this is how the 
water came to be in the boat. Thomas caught Ju­
lius and being stronger and heavier than he, Julius 
could neither release himself or control Thomas in 
his drowning condition, both finally went down 
struggling and floundering probably in diverse di­
rections. The paddle being of wood and light 
weight floated or drifted on the water at the pleas­
ure of the wind. The gum boots slid or were 
thrown out of the boat at time Julius jumped or 
slid out of boat and it turned to one side, or Julius in 
his excitement removed the boots and dropped them 
into the water. The bayou was dragged with both 
wire and other sharp pointed instruments for 
Thomas, Julius and the boots, hence these wires or 
other instruments separated the boots and bodies.

We will now call the attention of the court to

— 171—



what we consider to be a very improper, highly pre­
judicial and palpably a reversible error of the 
trial court in its remarks to the jury:

“ Because the court erred in making the follow­
ing remark to the jury after they had had the case 
under consideration from 11:00 p. m. of the 7th. of 
March, 1929, until 12:00 m. of the following day 
and they reported into court that they thought it 
was impossible to reach a verdict and the court ask­
ed how many ballots they had taken and the fore­
man reported, ‘Three.’ The court asked how they 
stood divided as to the number on each ballot, and 
the foreman replied, ‘First ballot, 9 to 3; second 
ballot, 10 to 2, and the third ballot 11 to 1.’ There­
upon, the court remarked, ‘Gentlemen, you seem to 
have been making progress toward a verdict and 
the court is not inclinded to discharge you yet with­
out your furthher deliberation and request you to 
discuss the case with one another freely, in an ef­
fort to reach a verdict, and, perhaps, some of you 
might change your minds about the matter and 
reach a verdict, for they say only a fool never chang­
es his mind sometime in life, and that any honest 
man will change his mind when he is convinced of 
his error.’ ”

At which time the court recessed to 1 :00 p. m. 
at which later time the jury begun further deliber­
ations, and returned a verdict at 1 :30 p. m.

— 172—



To which action of the court in making the 
above remarks to the jury counsel for the defendant 
excepted. (Tr. 538 & 541).

It is clearly disclosed, the case was submitted 
to the jury at 11:00 p. m., March 7th; that the 
jury considered the same from that time until 12:00 
m. the succeeding day, or a period of thirteen 
hours without being able to reach a verdict at 
which latter time the jury returned into, and 
through its foreman reported to the court it 
thought it was impossible to reach a verdict, that 
it had taken three ballots resulting, first ballot 9 to 
3, second ballot 10 to 2, third ballot 11 to 1, at this 
juncture the court addresed the jury:

“ Gentlemen, you seem to have been making 
progress toward a verdict and the court is not in­
clined to discharge you yet without your further de­
liberation and request you to discuss the case with 
one another freely in an effort to reach a verdict, 
and, perhaps, some of you might change your minds 
about the case and reach a verdict, for they say 
only a fool never changes his mind sometime in life 
and that an honest man will change his mind when 
he is convinced of his error.”

The court recessed for lunch from 12 :00 m. 
until 1:00 p. m., when the jury returned to the jury 
room for further deliberations and within 30 minutes

— 173—



returned into court its verdict. (The court after 
the jury had reported at 12 :00 m., it could not 
agree instructed it in the usual form not to discuss 
the case among themselves nor with any other per­
sons during the lunch hour and return to its room 
at 1 :00 p. m. which it did) so it is plainly seen after 
having the case under consideration for thirteen 
hours and unable to agree, within less than 30 min­
utes after the court’s remarks and its reconvening 
it reached and reported into court its verdict.

The court may not have committed reversible 
error in its remarks, “And perhaps, some of you 
might change your minds about the matter, and 
reach a verdict,” but from our view and opinion 
either remark, “ For they say only a fool never 
changes his mind sometimes in life” or, “Any honest 
man will change his mind when he is convinced he 
is in error” is clearly, palpably and conclusively 
reversible error.

The phraseology of that part of the remark, 
“ For they say only a fool never changes his mind 
sometimes in life” could mean nothing nor refer to 
no one except the lone juror and when stripped of 
it verbage means, “ For they say, only a fool never 
changes his mind,” the remaining part of the sent­
ence (sometimes in life) limits his condition to this 
life. What did the court mean by the phrase, “ For 
they say.” To whom were he referring. Did he have

— 174—



reference to the attorneys in the case, or the remain­
ing eleven jurors, or to the clerk and his assistants, 
or the sheriff and his deputies, or the spectators, or 
the people generally, or to all combined, when he 
said, “They say only a fool never changes his mind.”

Again what idea did the court intend to con­
vey in that part of his remark, “Any honest man 
will change his mind when he is convinced of his
error.” Why were such scathing and biting 
thrusts at this lone juror who had stood by his con­
victions for thirteen hours.

The court virtually told this juror you are con­
vinced of your error but will not change hence you 
are dishonest. Again the court said in effect to 
the lone juror, “ Only a fool never changes his mind.” 
You have not changed your mind for thirteen hours, 
but change and vote for conviction and show the 
court, attorneys, fellow jurors, spectators, sheriff 
and his deputies, clerk and his assistants and the 
public generally that you are not a fool but if you 
do not change your mind you are both dishonest and 
a fool. If we are not correct in our analysis what 
did the court mean. Why use such uncouth re­
marks? Why use the singular number and to whom 
was he applying the words, “Fool” and “ Dishonest” 
for evidently he had but one person having used the 
singular number in his mind and his words were 
simply expressing his mind.

— 175—



We can appreciate the humiliation and chagrin 
of this sole juror being held up by the court in ridi­
cule and derision before his fellow jurors, attor­
neys, spectators, court and court officials because 
he was honest, true and faithful to his convictions 
and conscientiously believed the maltreated, beaten, 
lacerated and abused colored boy was innocent of 
the surmised crime charged to him.

It cannot be gainsaid nor refuted that the un­
just remarks of the court did not affect and cause 
the juror to change his vote of not guilty to guilty 
which was plainly and clearly wrong and reversible 
error.

We do not intend in the least to reflect upon 
the trial judge for whom we have the greatest re­
spect, knowing him to be honest, capable, careful, 
considerate and courteous.

In the case of the St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. vs. 
Carter, 111 Ark. 272, the court said:

“ The trial judge should not, by threat or en­
treaty, attempt to influence the jury to reach a ver­
dict. He should not, by word or act, intimate that 
they arrive at a verdict which is not the result of 
their free and voluntary opinion, and which is not 
consistent with their conscience.”

It is said in case of Simonson vs. Lovewell, 118
Ark. 89, “ The object of jury trial is to get the free

— 176—



judgment of the jurors upon the facts in dispute; 
and the fundamental question to be determined in 
testing the language used by the court in admonish­
ing the jury to reach a verdict in a given case is to 
determine whether or not the language used by the 
judge was calculated to coerce the jury, either by 
threat or by persuasion, into an unwilling verdict.”

“ As we have already seen, each party, as a fun­
damental right, was entitled to have the issues of 
fact determined by a unanimous verdict which had 
the independent assent of each member of the jury, 
and we are of the opinion that the language of the 
court was calculated to impress upon the minds of 
the jury that the minority should yield to the ma­
jority for the sake of agreement in the case. The 
minority should not be required to yield to the ma­
jority unless from conscientious convictions that the 
majority are right.”

The court said in case of Sharp vs. State, 51 
Ark. 157, “ The experience of every lawyer shows 
the readiness with which a juror frequently catch 
at intimations of the court, and the great deference 
which they pay to the opinions and suggestions of 
the presiding judge, especially in a closely balanced 
case, when they can thus shift the responsibility of 
a decision from themselves to the court. A word, 
a look, or a tone may, sometimes, in such cases, be 
of great or even controlling influence.”

- 1 7 7 -



“ In the midst of doubt as to what their verdict 
should be as to appellant it was natural for them to 
seize upon and adopt any opinion which they under­
stood the judge to have expressed or intimated upon 
the question which they are required to decide.”

This court said in case of Stepp vs. State 170 
Ark. 1072, “ This court has held that the circuit 
court in its discretion may admonish a jury which 
has been unable to agree to weigh the opinion of 
the majority. But it is prejudicial, however, for 
the trial court to use language from which the jury 
may reasonably infer that the court intimates that 
the minority should yield their opinion to the major­
ity.”

This court said in case of Benson vs. State, 149 
Ark. 641, “ In the case of St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. vs. 
Carter, 111 Ark. 272, 282, we said: “ The rule is well 
settled in this state that the trial court may detail 
to the jury the ills attendant on a disagreement 
and the importance of coming to an agreement. 
The court should not, by threat or entreaty, attempt 
to influence the jury to reach a verdict. He should 
not, by word or act, intimate that they should ar­
rive at a verdict which is not the result of their free 
and voluntary opinion, and which is not consistent 
with their conscience. He may, however, warn 
them not to be stubborn and to lay aside all pride of 
opinion and consult with each other and give due

— 178—



regard and weight to the opinion of their fellow 
jurors.’ ”

It is said in case of McGehee & Company vs. 
Fuller, 169 Ark. 924, “Each juror must form his 
opinion according to his best judgment without any 
attempt on the part of the court to influence him to 
render a verdict contrary to his conscience under the 
law and the evidence,”  and, “ It is prejudicial how­
ever for the trial court to use language from which 
the jury may reasonably infer that the court in­
timates that the minority should yield their opinion 
to the majority.”

It is said in Crosby vs. State, 154 Ark. 25, “ The 
theory of the court, in ordering a reversal in the 
cases there cited, is that the verdict of the jury 
should be made up in every case from the testimony 
of the witnesses alone, uninfluenced by any act or 
opinion of the trial judge reflecting his estimate of 
the weight and credibility of any testimony.”

Hughes vs. State, 154 Ark. 625.

Doran vs. State, 141 Ark. 442.

Brown vs. State, 143 Ark. 523.

It is said in case of Sharp vs. State, 51 Ark. 
155, “ In all trials the judge should preside with im­
partiality. In jury trials especially, he ought to be 
cautious and circumspect in his language and con-

— 179—



duct before the jury. He should not express or in­
timate an opinion as to the credibility of a witness 
or a controverted fact.”

In the same case the court quoting with ap­
proval from the case of McMinn vs. Whelan, 27 Cal., 
300;

“ From the high and authoritative position of 
a judge presiding at a trial before a jury, his influ­
ence with them is of vast extent, and he has it in his 
power by words or actions, or both, to materially 
prejudice the rights and interests of one or the other 
of the parties. By words or conduct he may on the 
one hand support the character or testimony of a 
witness, or on the other hand destroy the same, in 
the estimation of the jury; and thus his personal and 
official influence is exerted to the unfair advantage 
of one of the parties.”

The trial judge should not make any remark 
to or in the hearing of the jury which would indicate 
his opinion as to the merits of the case or as to any 
fact involved therein.”

“ He should not by any word or act intimate 
that they should arrive at a verdict which is not 
the result of their free and voluntary opinion, and 
which is not consistent with their conscience.”

St. L. I. M. & S. Ry Co. vs. Devaney, 98 Ark. 86.

— 180—



“ It is unnecessary and improper for a trial 
judge to remind the jury that he has an opinion 
upon the facts, though they, of course, know that 
he has an opportunity, equal with them, of form­
ing an opinion, and that he entertains one. It 
would be a harmless error if he went no further than 
that; but when he gives the jury an intimation, how­
ever slight, as to what that opinion is, he invades 
the province of the jury, and to that extent en­
croaches upon the constitutional right of the ac­
cused to a trial upon the facts by the jury.”

“ In People vs. Kinderberger, 100 Cal. 367, the 
trial judge, after the jury returned into court and 
reported their inability to agree upon a verdict, used 
in his charge the following language which was held 
to be erroneous and prejudicial, viz; ‘In view of the 
testimony in this case, the court is utterly at a loss 
to know why twelve honest men cannot agree in this 
case.’ The court, in passing upon this remark, said; 
‘Nothing can be clearer than that in this charge 
the judge informed the jury that he had a fixed and 
definite conviction in regard to the verdict which 
they ought to return, and that in his opinion the evi­
dence to support such a conclusion was so plain and 
satisfactory that honest and intelligent jurors ought 
not to disagree as to its weight and effect; and we 
think the jury understood, or, at least, may have 
understood, from these unguarded remarks in the

181—



opinion of the judge the defendant was guilty, and 
that such should be their verdict;’ ”

Bishop vs. State, 73 Ark. 573.

This court in the former hearing of this case, 
reported in 177 Ark. 1034, said:

“ Evidence was adduced by the defendants tend­
ing to show that the confessions were obtained by 
severely whipping them. The officers admitted whip­
ping the defendants, but denied that they did it to 
obtain the confessions. They claimed that they 
whipped them because they were impudent to 
them, and said that the confessions were free and 
voluntary.”

“For the reason that we have reached the con­
clusion that the evidence is not legally sufficient to 
support the verdict it will not be necessary to de­
cide whether the confessions were extorted from the 
defendants by whipping them. In this connection, 
however, we again call attention to the fact that 
this court is committed to the rule that confessions 
used in evidence against the defendants must have 
been free and voluntary and they must not be ex­
torted from them by whipping them or by any in- 
quisatoria! method.”

“ This brings us to a consideration of the ques­
tion of whether the evidence was legally sufficient 
to warrant the verdict of guilty. Counsel for the ap-

- 182-



pellants rely upon the well settled rule in this state 
that, under Sec. 3182 of our statutes, to warrant a 
conviction upon a confession not made in open court 
there must be independent evidence to show that the 
offense was actually committed by some one. This 
court has uniformly held that, under our statutes, to 
warrant a conviction from an extra judicial confes­
sion of the accused, there must be independent evi­
dence to establish that the crime has been actually 
perpetrated by some one.”

“ After a careful consideration of all the testi­
mony in the record, viewed in the light of the sur­
rounding circumstances, we have reached the con­
clusion that, outside of the confessions of appellants, 
there is no evidence legally sufficient to show that 
Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas were drowned 
by any one.”

“ There were no marks of violence on the bodies 
of either of Julius McCullom or Elbert Thomas when 
they were recovered, and nothing from their clothes 
or bodily appearance indicated that they had 
been in a struggle before their death. Elbert Thom­
as was much stouter than either of the boys charged 
with the commission of the crime. Julius McCullom 
was also a strong, active young man.”

“ A careful review of all the testimony, in the 
light of the attending circumstances, impels us to

— 183



reach the conclusion that there was no independent 
evidence that any one drowned Julius McCullom and 
Elbert Thomas.”

The state has no additional evidence except 
that of James L. Alley, photographer; H. E. Shell- 
house, surveyor; A. H. Davidson, who took Mrs. 
McCullom and her younger children home in his 
car, G. A. Smith, the garage operator who claimed 
to have seen Julius, Elbert and Gi’ady in the pas­
ture, Will Thomas who claimed he also saw Elbert, 
Julius and Grady in the pasture and Robert Bell and 
Grady Swain on the bridge 100 yards south of store 
dividing a stick of candy and to whom Robert Bell 
exhibited a ten dollar bill which he had lost, prior 
to its exhibition, in a crap game, L. D. Prewett who 
testified Julius unlaced his high topped boots, pull­
ed the tops back and exhibited to Elbert Thomas in 
the presence of Robert Bell money wrapped around 
his pants leg and the “ No Rounder” , floating, Ger­
man Jones who claims to have seen through the 
brush at a distance of twenty-five or thirty steps 
two colored people in and throwing a white person 
out of a boat, the testimony of all of whom does not 
prove that a crime had been committed or if a crime 
had been committed tended to show the guilt of de­
fendant and connect him with the crime.

The closest proximity Robert was placed by

— 184—



any witness to the point of supposed drowning was 
the old log house east of the store and the bridge.

If the declivity of the banks of the bayou at 
place of drowning was so great the drowning could 
not be seen at the distance of 140 yards from the 
store nor its front porch both of which must evi­
dently be elevated from the ground nor the road at 
a distance of about 80 yards over the clear level pas­
ture then how did the witness Jones see the drown­
ing at the distance of twenty-five or thirty yards 
through the brush and down into the bayou.

We assure the court we have been throughout 
the presentation of this case most sincere and hon­
est in stating the facts, testimony and argument with 
due regards and respects to the court and all par­
ties taking part but are firmly entrenched in our 
convictions that the helpless and benighted defend­
ant is innocent of the crime charged to him, erron­
eously convicted, and sentenced to life imprison­
ment.

We submit that the case should be reversed for 
the error of the trial court holding the confession of 
defendant to Mr. Campbell and Mr. McCullom was 
free and voluntary and allowing the same to be in­
troduced at the trial; for the erroneous remarks of 
the court to the jury during its deliberation, and for 
the further error that the state has failed to estab-

•185—



lish by independent evidence that a crime has been 
perpetrated by any one, or if a crime had been per­
petrated to connect defendant with the crime.

Respectfully submitted,

W. J. LANIER,
ROY. D. CAMPBELL,

Attorneys for Appellant.

— 186—







IN TH E

Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL AND GRADY SWAIN, Appellants.

VS. NO_____________

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellees.

Appealed from St. Francis Circuit Court

ABSTRACT AND BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

W. J. LANIER,

G. B. KNOTT,

Attorneys for Appellants.

T I M E S - H E R A L D  P R I N T , F O R R E S T  C I T Y , A R K A N S A S





IN THE

Supreme Court of Arkansas
ROBERT BELL AND GRADY SWAIN, Appellants.

VS. NO_____________
STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellees.

Appealed from St. Francis Circuit Court

ABSTRACT AND BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

STATEMENT

The Grand Jury of St. Francis County, Tues­
day, the 20th day of March, 1928, returned into 
Court an indictment against appellants, Robert 
Bell and Grady Swain, for the crime of murder in 
the first degree, accusing them of having drowned 
Julius McCullom in Cut-Off Bayou on the 29th day 
of December, 1927. (Tr. 2).

Copies of indictments were served on the de­
fendants by the Circuit Clerk at 11:15 a. m., Tues­
day, March 20th, 1928, (Tr. 3), they were ar­
raigned on the following Friday, March 23rd, 
(Tr. 17), on the same day they announced that 
neither they nor their relatives nor friends were 
financially able to employ counsel to represent them 
so the Court at about 12:00 m., Friday, March 23,



appointed G. B. Knott and W. J. Lanier to defend 
them and set the case for trial at 9 :00 a. m., the 
following Tuesday, March 27, 1928, (Tr. 16).

On the morning of Saturday, March 24, 1928, 
the appointed attorneys had the clerk issue sub­
poenas for witnesses, all of whom were incarcerat­
ed in the penitentiary at Little Rock, to testify on 
behalf of defendants.

“ SUBPOENA.
(State Cases) No. 3014.

The State of Arkansas, to the sheriff of Pulaski
County, Greetings;

You are commanded to summons Walter 
Harris, Joe Puckett, Will Dale, Robert Ducket, 
Golden Throw, Chas. Falkner, Ray Harris, Ed. 
Farmer, Dr. Stanley, Mr. Stockings, Henry Forrest, 
Mr. Glen, Mr. Cole, S. L. Todhunter, Raymond Fer­
guson to appear in the St. Francis Circuit Court, on 
the 7th day of its next March Term, which will be 
on the 27th day of March, 1928, and testify on be­
half of defendants in an action in said court, be­
tween the State of Arkansas, plaintiff, and Robert 
Bell and Grady Swain, defendants.

Witness my hand and seal of said court, this 
24th day of March, 1928.

(Seal) J. F. McDougal, Clerk Circuit Court.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.”

— 2



T h e  R etu rn  th ereo n .

“ State of Arkansas, )
) SS.

County of Pulaski. )

I have this 27th day of March, A. D., 1928, at 
Little Rock duly served the within by showing the 
original and stating the substance thereof to the 
within all in person in said county except Mr. 
Stocking and Mr. Glen after diligent search fail to 
find them in said county as I am thereon com­
manded.

J. M. Heynie, Sheriff,
By W. G. McDaniel.”  (Tr. 4).

“ SUBPOENA
(STATE CASES) No. 3014.

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, To the Sheriff of St. 
Francis County, Greetings:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to summons Bob 
Swain, Grady Swain, Joe Cox, Mrs. Joe Cox, John
P ayn e,------------------------Sanders (colored), Evilena
Williams, Link M oore,______________ Shelby, Mary
Shelby, Mrs. J. M. Campbell, Charley Henry, Jno. 
I. Jones, B. McCullom, Mrs. B. McCullom, Charlotte 
McCullom, Herbert McCullom, Mrs. Mitchel Ham­
ilton, S. J. Bell, to appear before the ST. FRANCIS 
CIRCUIT COURT, on the 7th day of its next March 
Term, which will be on the 27th day of March, 
1928, and testify on behalf of the defendant in an

3—



action in said Court, between the State of Arkansas, 
plaintiff, and Robert Bell and Grady Swain, de­
fendants.

Witness my hand and the seal of said Court, 
this 24th day of March, 1928.

(Seal) J. F. McDougal, Clerk Circuit Court.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.”

The following is the return thereon:

“ State of Arkansas, )
) SS.

County of St. Francis. )

I have this 26th day of March, A. D., 1928, at 
Hughes, duly served the within by showing the 
original, and stating the substance thereof to the 
within named parties, as I am therein commanded.

Filed Mar. 27, 1928 J. M. Campbell, Sheriff.
J. F. McDougal, Clerk E. M. Clinton.” (Tr. 5)

“ FORTHWITH SUBPOENA

(STATE CASES) No. 3014.

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, To the Sheriff of St. 
Francis County, Greeting:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to summons F. P. 
Todd and Walter Gorman, Sr., to appear before the 
ST. FRANCIS CIRCUIT COURT, on the 7th day 
of its next March Term, which will be the 27th day

4-



of March, 1928, and testify on behalf of the de­
fendant in an action in said Court, between the 
State of Arkansas, plaintiff, and Robt. Bell and 
Grady Swain, defendants.

Witness my hand and the seal of said Court, 
this 27th day of March, 1928.

(Seal) J. F. McDougal, Clerk Circuit Court.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.”

The return thereon is as follows:

“ F. P. Todd and Walter Gorman, Sr.

J. M. Campbell 
Bob Levett.

Filed March 27, 1928.
J. F. McDougal, Clerk.” (Tr. 7).

Upon Court convening at 9 :00 o’clock, a. m., 
Tuesday, March 27th, the defendants through their 
attorneys filed three motions: The first praying a
continuance for a reasonable time in order that the 
depositions of the witnesses could be taken, all of 
whom had been convicted of and were confined in 
the Penitentiary Walls at Little Rock contained in 
the subpoena dated March 24th, 1928, and directed 
to the sheriff of Pulaski County, so could not be 
produced to testify in the trial of the case. (Tr. 8). 
The second, praying a continuance for a reasonable 
time on account of the absence of witness F. P.

— 5—



Todd, who was coroner of St. Francis County on 
date of alleged crime, and further that defendants 
had continuously and were confined in penitentiary 
walls in Little Rock from about the 30th day of 
December, 1927, up to and until they were brought 
therefrom and placed in jail in Forrest City, at the 
convening of the Circuit Court where they have 
been continuously and were then confined in a cell; 
that neither they nor anyone, relatives or friends, 
had at any time been financially or otherwise able 
to employ counsel to defend them; that counsel 
were not appointed by the Court until about 12 
o’clock, m., Friday, March 23rd, 1928; that they 
were boys of the ages of 14 and 18 years; that they 
can barely write their names; have no education; 
know absolutely nothing as to the workings of court 
nor what was necessary to be done therein in way 
of a defense; that both are colored; that none of 
their relatives knew that they had been returned 
from penitentiary walls in Little Rock or they would 
be placed on trial in these cases on Tuesday, 
March 28, 1928, prior to six o’clock in the after­
noon, Saturday, March 24th, 1928, (Tr. 11), and 
third, that an order be made designating some per­
son other than sheriff, J. M. Campbell, to summons 
jurors to try the defendants as he had been at all 
times and is highly prejudiced against the defend­
ants, had at all times and is taking a very active



interest in procuring evidence against them by do­
ing his utmost to send them to the electric chair; 
that he had on different times and occasions whip­
ped defendants and at other times had been present, 
aiding, advising and abetting in whipping them 
with the intention of and finally did through threats 
of bodily harm, intimidation, duress, coercion, force 
a confession from them; that they were present at 
the time and place Elbert Thomas and Julius Mc- 
Cullom were drowned and they did drown them.

Julius McCullom, a white boy, between eleven 
and twelve years of age, healthy, strong and robust, 
Elbert Thomas, colored, nineteen years of age, with 
only one eye, also strong, healthy and robust, and 
defendants, Robert Bell, colored, in his eighteenth 
year, and Grady Swain, colored, in his fourteenth 
year, were in, or in front of a country store owned 
and operated by B. McC'ullom the father of Julius 
McCullom, between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock on the 
afternoon of December 29, 1927, which was a
bright, cool and sunny day. The store building with 
large glass front windows faced the south and was 
on the north side, adjacent to and at the confluence 
of the main public highway leading from Marianna, 
Cody, Tongin, Brickey and Hughes with the 60-foot 
main public highway leading from Forrest City, 
through Madison, Widener, Round Pond, Chatfield, 
West Memphis to Memphis, Tennessee.

— 7  —



A barbed wire fence is adjacent to and on the 
south side of the main public highway running east 
and west and separated the highway from a clear, 
open and level mule pasture lying directly south and 
in front of the store building with glass window 
fronts. Directly in front of the store building at 
a distance of 175 to 200’ yards is what is commonly 
called Cut-Off Bayou. Robert Swain who was a 
share-cropper and the father of Grady Swain lived 
and had lived near this country store for several 
years.

Grady Swain who is small of stature and light 
weight for a boy in his fourteenth year was often 
at the store playing with Julius McCullom and 
other boys.

Sometime prior to 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock in 
the afternoon of the 29th, Grady’s mother sent him 
to the store to purchase some washing soap. He 
procured the soap, returned and reached home 
about 4:00 p. m., where he remained.

Robert Bell is of medium stature and weight 
for a boy in his eighteenth year. His father, who 
lived a short distance from the store, carried the 
mail from one small post office in the bottom to 
another small post office in the bottom, owned*, an 
old jogging horse which Robert occasionally used 
carrying the mail for his father when his father was

8—



sick or busy and often rode it to the McCullom 
store and McCullom home which was a distance of 
about one-half of one mile northeast of the store.

Holbert McCullom, child of B. McCullom, 
eight years old, would very frequently by himself 
or behind Robert ride this old horse up and down 
the public highway running east and west between 
the store and the bayou for childish pleasure and 
amusement.

Robert, this afternoon after he had carried and 
delivered the mail, stopped at the store as usual, 
hitched this horse and was either in front of or in 
the store with Julius, Elbert Thomas, Grady Swain 
and other boys, on the return of Ransom McCullom, 
brother of B. McCullom, and uncle of Julius Mc­
Cullom, from Hughes with a truck of merchandise 
about 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. Julius, Elbert, 
Robert, Grady and other boys were either inside of 
the store or immediately in front of it upon the re­
turn of Ransom McCullom with merchandise and 
were in and around the store during the time he was 
unloading same and possibly assisted him.

Mr. B. McCullom, his wife and the younger chil­
dren, one of whom was a boy, Holbert, 8 years of 
age, were all in or about the store when Ransom 
returned and unloaded the merchandise. Neither 
Mr. B. McCullom, his wife, nor Mr. Ransom Mc­
Cullom saw or noticed anything unusual or out of

9—



the way in the looks, actions, manners, conduct or 
demeanor of any of the boys. This was the last 
seen of Julius and Elbert Thomas that day so far 
as disclosed by the evidence, except that of Ray­
mond Ferguson and Henry Flowers.

Elbert Thomas apparently was a worthless 
and shiftless handy man in and around the Mc- 
Cullom store, in fact hung around there practically 
if not all the time and occasionally assisted in wait­
ing on customers. Both Mr. B. McCullom and Mr. 
Ransom McCullom remained in and around the 
store the remainder of the day waiting on trade and 
doing other chores. Mr. B. McCullom was unwell, 
hence he spent part of time near the store. A short 
time after the return of Ransom McCullom with and 
unloading the freight or merchandise, Mrs. B. Mc­
Cullom and younger children went in an au­
tomobile to her home which as stated was 
a distance of near one-half of one mile northeast 
of the store building. Soon after she reached 
home Robert, who had previously assisted her with 
chores in and around the house for something to 
eat, as is the custom of colored boys, came to the 
house riding this same jogging horse, got 
down, went into the house and asked her 
if she wanted him to churn for her. She looked 
at the milk but ascertained it had not turned. 
Some time thereafter she got the lamps for

— 10—



the purpose of filling them with oil but ascertained 
oil can was empty so she told him to take the coal 
oil can, go to the store and get some oil as she had 
none, he took the can, young Holbert got on the 
horse behind him and they rode to the store, se­
cured the oil and then returned on the same horse 
in the same manner to Mrs. McCullom’s home and 
delivered the oil. He remained at the home of Mrs. 
McCullom for sometime and then returned to the 
store on the same horse. Soon after he returned 
to the store Mr. McCullom wanted Julius at the 
store so sent Robert back to his home for him, but 
on the return to the house found Julius was not 
there so he again returned to the store and report­
ed this fact to Mr. McCullom, who sent his brother, 
Ransom, to the near neighbors thinking Julius was 
there.

Search was made for Julius and his body 
found 175 or 200 yards in front of the store building 
in the bayou about 8:30 or 9:00 o’clock that night 
without a scratch, scar or bruise on him or any of 
his clothes torn, ruffled or disheveled. Upon the 
discovery of the dead body an alarm was given, 
people gathered from far and near, it being sur­
mised that Thomas had drowned Julius, this report 
and surmise continued without cessation up to and 
until the discovery of the body of Thomas some 
eight or ten days thereafter (Tr. 37). In the mean­

11—



time Sheriff Campbell had 1500 circulars struck 
describing Thomas and detailing what he pre­
sumed and purported to be the crime which was 
broadcast throughout the entire country, great ex­
citement prevailed, lynching parties were formed, 
fires built, ropes adjusted for Thomas should he be 
apprehended alive. All of this excitement, forming 
lynching parties, talk of lynching, building fires 
and gathering of mobs occurred in the presence or 
immediate vicinity of these two boys.

Grady Swain was arrested the next morning as 
he was seen at the store that afternoon, taken to 
place where inquest was held, questioned and then 
brought to Forrest City, placed in jail, Mr. Camp­
bell and his deputy, John I. Jones, in the night time 
removed him from his cell, conducted him to an 
ante-room in the same building and there slapped 
him with his hand and whipped him with a hame 
string three feet long with buckle on end, and 
forced a confession from him, he was then taken 
by the same Campbell, who weighs about 200 
pounds to Brinkley, placed and remained in jail 
possibly 24 or 36 hours to avoid mob violence then 
returned to Forrest City and retained in jail a short 
period of time and then rushed to the Penitentiary 
walls at Little Rock to avoid lynching.

Upon reaching the walls the same Mr. Camp­
bell in the presence and with the assistance of

_ 12—



warden, Todhunter, again under a raw-hide strap 
four inches wide by four and a half feet long with 
wooden handle and in the hands of the warden, 
who weighed 200 pounds, again whipped this 14- 
year-old boy after making him remove his coat and 
lie down on the ground face downward, forced a 
confession from him. Robert Bell, a boy in his 18th 
year was arrested and brought to Forrest City, 
placed and held in jail several days and to avoid 
possible lynnching, taken handcuffed to Little Rock, 
by the same Mr. Campbell, placed in a dark cell 
or dungeon in the Penitentiary Walls with the most 
desperate criminals, where he was continuously 
incarcerated save and except when removed from 
this dark cell or dungeon by the same Todhunter 
for the purpose of and who did after persistently, 
continuously, over-bearingly, daily and nightly in­
terrogate him, part of time in the presence of the 
same Mr. Campbell and the same Mr. B. McCullom 
and a part by himself and on three several different 
occasions severely beating him with the same raw- 
hide strap four and a half feet long by four inches 
wide with handle, after having him remove his 
coat and lie on the floor face downward forced an 
alleged admission from him. One and probably 
two of the whippings were in the presence of the 
same Mr. Campbell and the same Mr. McCullom.

Finally before and in the private office in the 
Penitentiary Walls, in the night time, doors bar­

— 13—



red, curtains pulled down, lights turned on, of the 
said Mr. Todhunter, seated at the desk in one of 
the drawers of which he kept his raw-hide four 
inches wide by four and a half feet scorpin whip and 
who had so unmercifully and inhumanely whipped 
and beaten, consistently and persistently interro­
gated him, Mr. B. McC'ullom, the father of Julius, 
who had been present, stood by, approved and 
sanctioned this inhumane whipping and beating and 
who with both boys was also present at his store at 
Greasy Corner and saw the fires built, mobs and 
lynching parties formed to burn or lynch Thomas 
should he be apprehended alive, when great ex­
citement prevailed, searching parties formed, the 
country far and wdde scoured, other negroes ar­
rested, placed in jail and given the third degree, 
1500 stud horse circulars scattered broadcast 
through the country and Mr. S. S. Hargraves, a 
hired attorney of Memphis, Tennessee, and a non­
resident stenographer employed and paid by the 
same Mr. B. McCullom from the office of Mr. 
Hargraves, a partially reported written confession 
was wrung from these benighted, forsaken and 
friendless colored boys by persistent questions, sug­
gestive of desired answers which would not have 
been permitted in a court. Robert Bell not being 
permitted to sit dowm and stripped of every vestige 
of clothing.



ABSTRACT OF EVIDENCE

MR. J. M. CAMPBELL TESTIFIED, PARTLY 
IN ABSENCE OF JURY:

That as sheriff of St. Francis County he took 
a very, very active part and interest in case by using 
his utmost and strenuous energies to procure all 
possible evidence against defendants; that subse­
quent to incident and while in Hot Springs he as­
certained through an article in newspaper that 
Thomas and young McCullom drowned; he im­
mediately returned and upon reaching Forrest City, 
went to the jail where he found John I. Jones, his 
office deputy, quizzing Grady Swain in an ante­
room to jail, that he entered into the conversation; 
however the actions and conduct of the boy did not 
suit his fastidious fancy so he slapped the boy and 
called upon and had one of the prisoners occupying 
the adjacent cell room hand him through a small 
door between the cell room and ante-room a leather 
strap, three feet long with buckle on end with which 
he gave the boy a whipping, that it was his impres­
sion that he held buckle end of strap when whip­
ping the boy; that he offered no force, duress, 
threats, nor inducement to force a confession from 
him; the boy did not confess to him but thinks it 
may be shown he confessed to Mr. Jones. (Tr. 25 
and 26).

— 15—



CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. J. M. 
CAMPBELL IN ABSENCE OF THE JURY. (Tr. 27).

Reterates that he slapped and whipped Grady 
in ante-room of jail but is uncertain whether he 
used buckle end of bunk or hame string strap for 
the reason the boy did not talk to suit him; he saw 
Mr. Todhunter whip Robert Bell in stockade at 
Little Rock. Mr. Todhunter whipped Robert once 
in stockade after he forced him to lie down on 
floor face downward; both he and Todhunter were 
whipping the boys to force them to tell where the 
money was; Robert denied any knowledge of the 
money till he was whipped. (Tr. 34).

MR. B. McCULLOM TESTIFIED IN ABSENCE 
OF THE JURY FOR THE STATE.

Is the father of Julius who was past eleven 
years of age, owns and operates a small store at 
what is called Greasy Corner which is near the 
town of Hughes, Julius drowned in C'ut-Off Bayou 
sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock on the 
afternoon of December, 29, 1927. (Tr. 35). About 
sundown Ransom McCullom was preparing to go 
home; Robert and Holbert came to the store riding 
an old horse and he sent Robert and Holbert, his 
eight-year-old son, to his home for him; Robert 
returned and reported he was not at home and as 
he had never remained out that late he became un­

- 1 6  —



easy and alarmed, went to the bayou where the 
boat was landed where Julius had been going and 
setting a trap; Julius and Elbert Thomas caught an 
o’possum in the trap the night before. (Tr. 34.)

Several neighbors came in, searching parties 
were formed, some went to the bayou thinking both 
Julius and Thomas were drowned, water was found 
in boat which was partly in and partly out of wa­
ter, its sides wet; Julius’ body was found by Ransom 
McCullom about 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock that night; 
Robert had been going and playing with Julius for 
about three or four years; Julius wore leather boots 
from home that morning to the store and at the 
store changed to rubber boots, the body of Thomas 
was found and recovered from the bayou about 
eight or nine days thereafter. (Tr. 37). Thomas’ 
body was 8 or 10 feet out in water from the place 
Julius’ body was found, the boat was 14 feet long, 
when Julus was found he had on no socks nor boots; 
when he was undressed he had on one supporter on 
one leg and no supporter on the other leg, does not 
know where the rubber boots were found. (Tr. 
38).

MR. McCULLOM ON CROSS EXAMINATION:

His residence is one-fourth or one-half mile 
northeast of the store; Julius kept his gum boots 
at store, dressed at home that morning, came to 
the store, changed leather boots to gum boots, he

17



did not see Julius dress at home that morning nor 
when he changed boots at the store nor did he know 
whether he did or did not have on socks. (Tr. 40). 
He may have changed boots in the forenoon or af­
ternoon, knows nothing whatever as to the hole in 
boot, when, where, why nor how it got there, may 
not have had socks on at all. (Tr. 42).

Robert Bell often rode to the store and let little 
Holbert and other McCullom children ride his horse 
up and down the road, Robert was in and out of 
the store practically all that day. (Tr. 43). About 
4:30 o’clock in the afternoon Robert on his horse 
went to the home of Mr. McC’ullom and asked Mrs. 
McCullom if there was anything she wanted him 
to do and did not return until about sundown. 
(Tr. 45). He last saw Julius at the store about 
3 :00 o’clock that afternoon and did not see Robert 
from that time until he came in store and purchased 
an article paying a nickle for same. (Tr. 46). 
Bayou is directly in front and in plain view of store. 
(Tr. 47). Saw Robert when he purchased article; 
his clothes were perfectly dry but paid no attention 
to his shoes nor socks, boys were all around the 
store that afteroon; thinks he would have noticed 
Robert if he had been in store in the interval be­
tween 4:00 o’clock and when he and Holbert left 
on horse for his home. Does not know whether 
Julius had any money at or before he drowned.

— 18—



The store is on north side of confluence of the 
Hughes Public Highway with Forrest City and 
Memphis Highway, south of and adjacent to the 
Highway is a barbed wire fence, immediately south 
of the Highway is an open pasture through which 
and at a distance of 175 or 200 yards or steps is 
what is called Cut-Off Bayou. He did not have a 
time piece so was uncertain of time but thinks it 
was about 2:30 or 3:00 p. m. when he saw Grady 
in store purchasing some sandwiches, did not see 
him again until after his arrest and he was being 
questioned at the inquest of body of Julius. Grady 
was in store with several other boys; however, he 
paid no attention to them nor the time as these boys 
were often around the store. (Tr. 53).

He could see the place in bayou where Julius 
was drowned standing in front part of store, hun­
dreds of people pass daily east and west over the 
public highway which runs parallel with and 
within 100 yards or steps of the bayou where 
Julius drowned. (Tr. 54). The boat was on side 
of bayou next to the store.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. B. Mc- 
CULLOM. (Tr. 56) :

Again says he saw all of the boys around the 
store off and on all that afternoon. (Tr. 57).

— 19—



RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. B. Mc- 
CULLOM. (Tr. 58):

Had Julius’ body thoroughly examined and 
there were no marks, bruises, scratches nor abras­
ions on it except one little blue place on throat but 
does not know how long it had been there, Julius 
was very strong, healthy and robust. Elbert 
Thomas was 19 years of age, saw his body after it 
was recovered from the bayou and it had no bruises, 
abrasions or scars on it. (Tr. 59).

Robert and Holbert who was eight years of 
age left the store on horse about 4:30 o’clock, p. 
m., a few minutes after Robert purchased the ar­
ticle, it might have been earlier or it might have 
been later when article was purchased. (Tr. 60). 
School for colored children was in session on south 
side of bayou near the place of drowning, he heard 
no noise, crys, hollering, nor commotion of any kind 
that afternoon. (Tr. 63).

MR. RANSOM McCULLOM TESTIFIED FOR 
THE STATE. (Tr. 64) :

Recovered body of Julius about 8:30 or 9:00 
o’clock; the boat was wet all over as if it had been 
sunk in the water and had about six inches of wa­
ter in it; the paddle was out in the bayou; Julius’ 
body was found 7 or 8 feet below the boat back 
of a stump; after the water went down he found

— 20



one boot near where the body was found and the 
other sixteen or seventeen feet out in bayou. (Tr. 
65). Found no socks; the body of Elbert Thomas 
was eighteen or twenty feet out in the bayou in 
deeper water. (Tr. 66). Julius when recovered 
was bare-footed, bare-headed, one supporter, and 
it seemed to him that he had a safety pin in his 
underwear, does not remember when Grady and 
Robert left the store as he was busy. (Tr. 67).

He did not see either Grady or Robert in or 
around the store after Mrs. McCullom left for 
home; did not see Grady again but about 7:30 that 
night he went to the home of Robert Swain, the 
father of Grady, asked Grady if he knew where 
Julius and Elbert were and he answered he did 
not. (Tr. 69).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. RANSOM 
McCULLOM. (Tr. 69) :

Boat was untied, the bank sloped gradually; 
one end of boat was not in the water; boat was at 
place where it always stayed and on a path lead­
ing from the store, across the pasture to and 
across the bayou. (Tr. 71). A school build­
ing for colored children is on opposite side of bayou 
and about 400 yards of place of drowning but he 
does not remember whether school was in session 
that afternoon; he located and removed the body 
of Thomas from bayou 8 or 9 days after that of

— 21—



Julius and there were no bruises, abrasions, scars 
nor scratches or lacerations on the body. (Tr. 73).

After missing Julius he went to the home of 
Bob Swain, his father, at about 7:30 or 8:00 p. m., 
went around into the back yard hollered at Grady 
who had retired asking him if he had seen Julius 
and he responded that he had not and could prove 
he was not with him that afternoon, McCullom did 
not go into the house nor did he see Grady nor his 
father, mother or any of the family nor did any 
one of them come to the door, he is of the opinion 
all of the family were in bed. It was a cold day. 
(Tr. 83).

Did not see Julius when he dressed that morn­
ing nor what he had on as Julius slept at home that 
night. Does not know whether he had either sup­
porters or socks on. Robert was in store and 
bought something from him about 4:00 o’clock 
paying as he recalls a nickle for it. (Tr. 79). 
Robert had several times previously purchased 
small articles from him paying nickels for same 
hence he paid no attention nor thought nothing 
about incident nor did he pay any attention to the 
nickel, he paid no particular attention to Robert’s 
clothes nor shoes that afternoon nor at time he made 
the purchase; does not know when Robert and 
little Holbert left the store as he paid no attention 
to nor the time of day. (Tr. 81).

■22—



Saw Grady at store about 1 :00 or 2 :00 o’clock 
that afternoon prior to going to Hughes for freight 
but is uncertain whether he saw him on his re­
turn. (Tr. 81).

Robert was back and forth in and out of the 
store just as any other boy all that afternoon so 
paid no particular attention to him or thought any­
thing about him; he did not see him after he left 
to go to the home of Mrs. B. McCullom until after 
dark. (Tr. 76). When he returned from Hughes 
with a load of freight at 3:30 or 4:00 p. m., Julius 
McCullom, Robert Bell and Elbert Thomas 
were at store; did not see Julius or Elbert 
from that time until they were gotten out of bayou; 
does not know where they were nor what they did 
the remainder of day. Robert remained in and 
around the store 15 or 25 minutes after he unload­
ed the freight on his return from Hughes but did 
not see him again until Julius and Elbert were 
missed. (Tr. 76).

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. RAN­
SOM McCULLOM. (Tr. 85) :

The boat appeared to have been partly sub­
merged. It had a seat across back end and on this 
seat was a big, muddy track; about two and one- 
half feet of boat was out of water making it hard 
to push off into the water. (Tr. 86).

— 23—



RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. RANSOM 
McCULLOM. (Tr. 87) :

Does not know who put boat where it was, nor 
when nor how long it had been since it was used 
last; the track on seat was big, plain, undried, mud­
dy track; bank of bayou gradually sloped at place 
where body of Julius was found and water was 
muddy. (Tr. 88).

Julius’ body was in water 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 
feet deep and 10 feet from bank. (Tr. 89).

RAYMOND FERGUSON TESTIFIES FOR 
STATE. (Tr. 91):

Late in the afternoon of December 29th, 1927, 
he came from east going west over the pike run­
ning east and west by the McCullom store and saw 
Julius McCullom, Elbert Thomas and Grady Swain 
going south across the pasture in front of store to­
wards the bayou. (Tr. 91).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF RAYMOND FER­
GUSON. (Tr. 91):

Sometime in the afternoon, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
o’clock, he and Henry Flowers were in a wagon 
loaded with household goods moving a family to 
the Cranor farm; it was after 1 but does not know 
how long; Julius, Grady and the one-eyed negro 
were getting through the wire fence on south side 
of highway as he drove up and stopped the wagon

— 24—



in front of the store, did not know whether Julius, 
Thomas or Grady had on boots or shoes, bare­
headed or hats, with or without coats nor the color 
or description of any of their clothes but could ac­
tually see it was Thomas by looking at and seeing 
his eyeless eye a distance of more than 70 yards; the 
only way he could recognize Thomas was by his 
one eye; he and Flowers remained at store 25 or 
30 minutes. (Tr. 101).

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF RAYMOND 
FERGUSON. (Tr. 102).

Lives one and one-half miles from store and 
it was dusk dark when he reached home. (Tr. 102).

RE-COSS EXAMINATION OF RAYMOND 
FERGUSON. (Tr. 102) :

Again testified that he remained at store about 
25 or 30 minutes and when he reached home it was 
good dusk dark. He did not see Robert Bell. 
(Tr. 102).

A. P. CAMPBELL TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 104) :

Saw Julius, Robert and Elbert at the store that 
afternoon about 2 or 3 o’clock; he then went home 
and returned to the store about dusk dark and met 
Robert there; they remained at store until 9:30 
o’clock that night at which time both left riding

— 25



Robert’s horse to the home of Campbell where both 
slept that night; on way home Robert told him that 
he drowned Elbert Thomas and Grady drowned 
Julius McCullom in the sea in front of the Mc- 
Cullom store but did not say how. (Tr. 106).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF A. P. CAMPBELL. 
(Tr. 107) :

Came from Mississippi to Arkansas, loafed in 
and around the McCullom store quite a deal of 
time, saw Robert at store about 2 in afternoon 
and again about good dark, lives about one mile 
from store, Robert had on shoes and they were 
perfectly dry, was with Robert practically con­
tinuously from 6:00 to 9:00 o’clock that night in 
and around store where good lights were burning 
and knows his shoes and clothes were perfect­
ly dry. It took only 20 or 25 minutes to ride from 
store to his home and during time of going from 
store to his home he and Robert talked about and 
discussed seven girls, he did not ask Robert about 
the drowning nor did Robert ask him anything 
about it nor did he say anything about it but Robert 
just “ Blurted out and told him” without rhyme or 
rhythm, this was all that was said, Robert did not 
request that he say nothing about it nor did he men­
tion money during the conversation. (Tr. 113). 
He was in and around the store continuously from 
December 29th, 1927, until he was arrested in

— 26—



second week in January following, brought to and 
placed in jail in Forrest City, knowing all of this 
time that officers and citizens thought Thomas had 
drowned the boy and were looking for him but he 
said absolutely nothing about having the conversa­
tion with Robert until after he was arrested, ac­
cused and placed and held in jail for sometime. 
(Tr. 115).

Robert said nothing about money, robbery or 
anything whatever except he blated out that he 
drowned one and Grady the other. (Tr. 116).

Re-Direct Examination of A. P. Campbell. 
(Tr. 117).

Re-Cross Examination of A. P. Campbell. 
(Tr. 118).

HENRY FLOWERS TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 123) :

He knew Julius McCullom, Grady Swain and 
a man they called Elbert and saw them sometime 
in the afternoon going through the pasture towards 
the bayou.

Cross Examination of Henry Flowers. (Tr. 
125).

Does not know the time closer than it was not 
quite dark. (Tr. 128).

■27—



Re-Direct Examination of Henry Flowers. 
(Tr. 129).

Re Cross Examination of Henry Flowers. (Tr. 
129).

The jury at the request of defendants retires 
from the court room. (Tr. 131).

MR. MARCUS FEITZ TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 131) :

Is court reporter; was present in Penitentiary 
Walls and took statements of Grady Swain and 
Robert Bell on typewriter; they were advised by 
Hargraves that statements might be used against 
them in court. (Tr. 133).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. MARCUS 
FEITZ. (Tr. 133) :

At the time statements were made he had an 
office with and working for Mr. Hargraves in Mem­
phis, Tennessee; on morning of January 29th, 
1928, which was Sunday, he and Mr. Hargraves 
came from Memphis in car, stopped at the Mc- 
Cullom store got him and they proceeded in car to 
Penitentiary Walls. Mr. B. McCullom paid him, 
Mr. S. L. Todhunter, Mr. Hargraves, Mr. B. Mc­
Cullom and Mr. Feitz and the two boys were all 
who were present at time confessions were made 
and typewritten in the Walls of the Penitentiary at

■28—



night, doors closed, curtains pulled down and 
lights turned on. Mr. Hargraves propounded the in­
terrogatories, the boys answered and he got the 
substance in his and Hargraves’ language on type­
writer, a great deal they said he did not get, it is 
only a partial confession, Mr. Hargraves, Mr. Mc- 
Cullom and I went into an outside office and Mr. 
Todhunter was not there at the time, when he came 
in Mr. McCullom, Mr. Hargraves, Mr. Todhunter 
and I went into an inside room inside the walls. 
(Tr. 138).

Mr. Hargraves told the boys he had come to 
take and wanted their statements which might be 
used in court against them, however, he does not 
remember all that Mr. Hargraves said to the boys. 
The boys had no representation, no one to advise 
them, nor no one to whom they could look for pro­
tection, parties were in the room about one and one- 
half hours; Grady’s statement was taken first, 
Robert was in room and heard it; he made an 
original and about three copies, read the original 
to them, they signed them. Mr. Todhunter and he 
witnessed the signatures. Robert could not write 
his name but signed by mark. (Tr. 142).

CONFESSION OF ROBERT BELL. (Tr. 142).

CONFESSION OF GRADY SWAIN. (Tr. 
146).

29—



CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. FEITZ. (Tr. 
151) :

“ I made this statement freely and voluntarily 
without threat of violence” was dictated by Mr. 
Hargraves to me in the presence of the two boys 
and then I read it to them. (Tr. 151).

He got practically everything they said but 
negroes go around and around so had to take a 
part and the substance only; statement of Grady 
was taken at 4:50 and Robert’s at 5:30 p. m. 
(Tr. 152).

GRADY SWAIN TESTIFIED. (Tr. 154) :

It first started off, Mr. J. M. Campbell and 
Mr. Todhunter whipped me and made me say it; 
they whipped me to make me know something 
about it, made me say it; I was afraid; Mr. Camp­
bell whipped me in jail, he told me to take off my 
coat and lay down and I pulled it off and lay down, 
he said, “ You know something about the drown­
ing,” then he up and hauled off and hit me with 
the strap, I told him I didn’t and he says I did and 
he jumped on me and beat me and made me say it 
and I up and told him after he whipped me, “ Yes 
sir.”  He told me if I didn’t say it he would kill 
me, he had me lying down stretched out, I told him 
I would say it after he whipped me. (Tr. 156).

— 30



The last whipping was in the Penitentiary 
Walls by Mr. Todhunter two or three weeks before 
the written confession, the afternoon when state­
ments were made Mr. Todhunter told me to come 
down and tell them what I said when he whipped 
me. (Tr. 157).

At the time the statements were taken Mr. 
Todhunter come and got me and said, “ Come here, 
Nigger, I want you to make the statement like you 
made to me the first time,” this was before we got 
in the office where Mr. Hargraves was. I didn’t 
make the confession freely but because I was scared 
for he said he would kill me if I didn’t tell him some­
thing; I didn’t know what the statement would 
mean to me in court. Mr. Hargraves just asked 
would I be willing for them to use the statement in 
court and I told him yes, sir. Robert Bell was stand­
ing back in the office when they took my statement. 
Grady saw Robert whipped once and heard him 
hollering when he was being whipped another 
time. Mr. Todhunter gave him both whippings; 
Mr. Todhunter whipped Grady once and Robert 
twice before statements were taken. (Tr. 161).

Once when Robert was whipped by Mr. Tod­
hunter he called me and made me sit on his head 
and hold him while he was whipping Robert, this 
was about one week before statements were signed; 
both boys were whipped with the same leather

— 31—



strap. Robert was whipped twice, once on Sunday 
and once afterwards, all before confessions were 
made orally or written; when he got in the room 
where the statements were taken Robert wasn’t 
there; Mr. Todhunter told me that Robert had con­
fessed too, like I had. Sheriff Campbell whipped 
me in jail in Forrest City with a leather strap with 
a buckle on end and made me tell him that I knew 
something about it. I was not saucy to him nor 
used ugly words to him but talked to him just as 
nice as a little negro could to a white man. 
(Tr. 166).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF GRADY SWAIN. 
(Tr. 166) :

The first time he was taken to Little Rock they 
took his picture but did not whip him, but was 
whipped by Sheriff Campbell in jail in Forrest 
City before he was taken the first time to Little 
Rock; Sheriff Campbell whipped him twice, once 
with a leather strap and another time he slapped 
him. After he had been in the Penitentiary Walls 
for sometime for safe keeping Sheriff Campbell 
came over after him and they were returning home, 
reached Lonoke and he got a letter saying that 
Thomas’ body had been discovered so he at Carl­
isle took me off of train, returned me to Walls and 
Mr. Todhunter just on inside of Walls made me re­
move my coat, lay down and then whipped me.

— 32—



Both Mr. Sheriff Campbell and Mr. Todhunter 
whipped me to make me say I knew where some 
money was and that I helped to drown Julius and 
Elbert, God knows I did not make no statement that 
I did until after they whipped me and made me say 
it. After Mr. Campbell whipped and slapped me 
at the jail I told them that I and Elbert Thomas 
drowned Julius, but I was afraid and they had al­
ready whipped me. When Mr. Sheriff Campbell 
whipped me he asked me didn’t I know something 
about this drowning and I told him no sir I didn’t 
know nothing about the drowning, then Mr. Camp­
bell asked for the strap, Mr. Charlie Henry (who 
then was in jail) handed the strap out through the 
bars (in little door between ante-room and jail 
proper) and Mr. Sheriff told me to lay down and 
I lay down on the floor and he whipped me. Again 
says he did not tell either Mr. Jones or Mr. Camp­
bell that he and Elbert Thomas drowned the Mc- 
Cullom boy until after Mr. Campbell had whipped 
him. They said you know something about it and 
had to tell it. (Tr. 169).

I was scared and asked Mr. Jones what they 
would do with me if they did not find Elbert Thomas 
foi* the reason they was asking me if the one-eyed 
negro was drowned. I was fourteen years of age 
August 2, 1927.

— 33—



Sheriff Campbell was bringing me back from 
the Walls (at time he got off train at Carlisle) 
to say it. I told them in office (Penitentiary Walls) 
but I was scared as there was a whole lot of them 
around me and I didn’t know whether they would 
whip me or not. I didn’t know nothing about no 
money. I told them where I hid the money but 
there was no money there. “ I tell you, Mr. Smith, 
I was scared,” a white man in the office said “ Get 
out the strap again,” I was afraid they would whip 
me so I told them I knew where the money was to 
keep them from whipping me. Mr. Campbell was 
sitting there hearing all of this but said nothing. 
(Tr. 172).

I told Mr. Campbell that I helped Elbert 
Thomas drown Julius but did not until he whipped 
me. The message received on train by Mr. Camp­
bell was, “ Grady Swain and Robert Bell probably 
drowned him,” but I told him I was not guilty, I 
did not tell him that Robert Bell and I drowned 
them. (Tr. 175).

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GRADY 
SWAIN. (Tr. 176) :

Until on way from Little Rock to Forrest City 
they were claiming Thomas had drowned Julius 
and trying to make me tell what Thomas had done. 
Mr. Campbell was the same man who had whipped

— 34—



me twice, took me to the Penitentiary Walls, heard 
them talking about getting the strap for me again, 
was with me on train and had a gun buckled 
around him. (Tr. 176).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF GRADY 
SWAIN. (Tr. 177) :

I signed the statement but did not know what 
I was doing nor what the statement was, they said, 
“Sign here,” I didn’t know whether they are the 
questions I says or not. I didn’t know what signing 
meant, I told them that I was not guilty and they 
had whipped me and made me guilty and I was in­
nocent. (Tr. 177).

ROBERT BELL TESTIFIED. (Tr. 177).

Is in his eighteenth year, made his mark on 
the statement after Mr. Todhunter had beaten him 
three times, first whipping was on Sunday about 
one week before statements were made, Mr. Sheriff 
Campbell, Mr. B. McC'ullom and Mr. Todhunter 
were present and saw me whipped up stairs in lit­
tle hall in the stockade, Mr. Todhunter made me 
take off my coat, lay down on the floor and whip­
ped me, he had asked me before if I had done it 
and I told him no sir. (Tr. 181).

It seemed like he hit me 50 licks with a big 
strap with wood or iron handle to it. No one held

— 35—



me the first time he whipped me; when he whipped 
he he told me I had been lying to him, I told 
him I didn’t know nothing about it, he said I was a 
lie, I did, he whipped me the following Sunday up 
in the stockade in the presence of Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. B. McCullom, when they whipped me this 
time they asked did I do it, I told them I didn’t, 
Mr. McCullom told me if I would tell the truth he 
would take me home, he told me what the people 
at home were saying and if I would tell the truth 
to bring me home, I told him I was innocent. Once 
Mr. Todhunter whipped me he again made me take 
off my coat, lay down on the stockade floor, whip­
ped and bruised me so bad I couldn’t sit down, but 
I still told him I didn’t know nothing, I didn’t do it. 
Once when he whipped me he beat me awhile, 
stopped and rested and then whipped me again be­
cause I would not say it, once he made Grady Swain 
get on my head while he beat me to make me say 
I knew something. I, then and not until then, told 
him I helped drown them, he did not whip me after 
I told him this, he wrnuld have been whipping me 
still if I had not told him I helped drown them. 
The last whipping was a few days before the writ­
ten statements were made, I said yes sir, I help­
ed to do it because I was scared and knew they 
would whip me again, I was never in court before 
this trial, know nothing about court, I can barely

— 3 6 —



sign my name, am in the second reader, both ver­
bal and written statements are untrue. (Tr. 185- 
187).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF ROBERT BELL. 
(Tr. 187) :

They whipped me trying to make me know 
something about the drowning and where money 
was too, I knew nothing about it until that night 
after the body of Julius was found. (Tr. 188).

After they found Julius I went to the home with 
and stayed all night with A. P. Campbell, I did 
not tell him we drowned them, he t/.d  a story on 
me, on the night the written confessions were made 
they were still unsatisfied and made me take off all 
my clothes in the room where they were writing 
and did not give me time to put all of them on 
again, I was afraid not to sign the statement for 
if I didn’t they would have beat me again. (Tr. 190).

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ROBERT 
BELL. (Tr. 191):

The day following the last whipping Mr. Tod- 
hunter came to my cell, told me to get out of bed, 
that he was going to make me write it down. I was 
afraid not to do what they said do. They would 
have whipped me again. He took me in the office 
where the statement was written and I made this 
one.

— 37—



Again says Mr. Todhunter came to his cell and 
told him that he was going to make him write it 
down, when they were taking confessions every 
time I would tell the truth they would say I was 
telling a lie, I was kept in cell in the stockade all 
the time I was there. (Tr. 193).

MR. JOHN I. JONES TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 195) :

Grady Swain was arrested on suspicion, 
brought to and placed in jail in Forrest City, he was 
brought out and told me that he and the one-eyed 
negro, Elbert Thomas, drowned the McCullom boy, 
he also asked what they would do to him if the 
one-eyed negro was found dead. (Tr. 196).

Grady did not talk to suit Mr. Campbell who 
came in during the conversation so he whipped him 
at about 8:00 o’clock that night. (Tr. 197).

Mr. Campbell was mad at the boy, reprimand­
ed him and says, “ I will teach you to learn how to 
talk to a white man,” that was about the substance 
of it. (Tr. 199).

Nothing was said at this time about money. 
(Tr. 201).

R E -C R O S S  E X A M I N A T I O N  O F  R O B E R T

B E L L . (T r . 1 9 2 )  :

— 3 8 —



MR. J. M. CAMPBELL TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 202) :

Is sheriff of St. Francis County, recalls when 
Julius McC'ullom and Elbert Thomas were drowned, 
was on his way from Hot Springs to Forrest City 
and saw an account of incident in Arkansas Demo­
crat, on reaching home went direct to the jail and 
found John I. Jones with and quizzing Grady 
Swain in the ante-room of the jail, he had told Mr. 
Jones that he and Elbert Thomas drowned the Mc- 
Cullom boy so Mr. Jones told me but he did not 
confess this to or before me, I whipped him with a 
12 or 14 inch strap because he was impudent, I 
do not know what I was trying to make him say 
when I whipped him and what I whipped him for 
except I considered him impudent, however, I don’t 
know what impudence is. I also slapped him. (Tr. 
204).

I kept him in Forrest City a few days and car­
ried him to state walls at Little Rock to avoid his 
being lynched; in the meantime we were hunting 
for Elbert Thomas. After I delivered him in State 
Walls I again quizzed him and asked him how big 
a roll of money he got off of the boy and if it was 
as big as a hoe handle and he said it was, he said 
he had buried it and where, so I came back, I look­
ed but could not find it, afterwards I returned to 
Little Rock, I quizzed him again about money,

— 39—



started with him for Forrest City, thinking I could 
make him locate some money but on train at 
Lonoke was handed a telegram stating that 
Thomas’ body had been found in bayou, so was 
afraid if I returned the boy to Forrest City he would 
be lynched so left the train at Carlisle and took 
him back to the State Walls for safe keeping and 
to avoid lynching parties.

Until this time Robert Bell had not been sus- 
picioned, nor had Grady or any other person, con­
nected him with the case in any way, although I 
was holding him in jail. Returning to Little Rock 
I asked him what lies he had been telling me 
(Tr. 206), and when I showed him the telegram 
reading that, “ Grady Swain and Robert Bell 
probably murdered him” (Thomas) he said, “ Yes 
sir, Robert Bell and I did that drowning,” but he 
had told me on same trip and a short time before 
that he and Thomas drowned the McCullom boy, 
on the way back to the walls he made the same con­
fession to me as disclosed in written confessions had 
at hearing with only a difference he drowned 
Thomas and Robert drowned the McCullom boy. 
(Tr. 207).

Robert was arrested, placed in jail in Forrest 
City, and taken to State Walls to avoid lynching. 
I went to the Walls on Sunday morning, had Robert

— 40—



removed from his cell, quizzed and quizzed him. 
(Tr. 211).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. J. M. 
CAMPBELL. (Tr. 212).

While he did not take an active part in whip­
ping the Bell boy in the penitentiary walls yet he 
stood by, approved and saw him whipped by Mr. 
Todhunter with “a strap he guessed two feet long,”  
Grady, all of the time until returning to Little Rock 
from Carlisle claimed he and Elbert Thomas did 
the drowning.

MR. TODHUNTER TESTIFIED FOR THE 
STATE. (Tr. 215).

Is warden of the state penitentiary, and as 
such has Robert Bell and Grady Swain in his cus- 
today; denied that he whipped Grady, admitted he 
whipped Robert twice solely because he lied to 
him, both boys confessed as to the drowning be­
fore they were whipped, confessions were same as 
written statments, kept Robert locked in cell all the 
time and Grady in yard, they were kept separate, 
at time of written statements Mr. Hargraves came 
to the walls and stated that he wanted to take the 
statements of the boys; I went out and called Grady 
who was in yard, then I went to the stockade got 
Robert and brought him over, has had 37 years ex­
perience and dealings with the most desperate 
criminals.

— 41—



He whipped the Bell boy with the regulation 
strap used on convicts because he was dirty and 
prevaricated, he was mean because he was dirty 
and told stories, could not tell what day nor when 
he whipped Robert the first time, had talked and 
talked to him, quizzed and quizzed him, time after 
tim«, day after day, night after night, trying to get 
a confession out of him and finally did get it little 
by little at times.

He kept Robert continuously in stockade by 
himself, does not remember whether Mr. McCullom 
was present when any of whippings were given, a 
period of one week intervened between first and 
second whippings, he made him take off his coat, lie 
down on floor face downward and poured it to 
him, Walter Harrison, a life timer and Grady Swain 
saw some of the whippings. (Tr. (222).

The second time he whipped him he made 
Grady Swain get on and hold his head while pour­
ing it to him.

He talked to Robert probably every day, and 
probably every two or three days, sometimes he 
would talk to and quiz him for a solid hour, some­
times he would go into the stockade and talk to 
him, sometime form the outside.

C R O S S  E X A M I N A T I O N  O F  M R . S . L . T O D -

H U N T E R . (T r . 2 1 9 ) .

— 42—



He had gotton a thousand confessions from 
prisoners and testified against them. (Tr. 224).

The jury returns into court. (Tr. 227).

MR. MARCUS FEITZ RECALLED, TESTIFIED 
FOR THE STATE. (Tr. 227).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. FEITZ. 
(Tr. 243) :

Mr. B. McCullom, Mr. Hargraves and Mr. Tod- 
hunter, witness and Mr. Ray Harrison were present 
in office inside of Walls of Penitentiary from 4:50 
to 5 :30 being the time the statements were re­
duced to writing, the boys had no one to represent 
them, nor advise them.

“ I got, yes sir, I would say I got all of it.” Mr. 
Hargraves and I came from Memphis, picked up 
Mr. B. McCullom at the McC’ullom store and came 
on to Little Rock, I have been working in Memphis 
for the last year, Mr. McCullom paid me.

MR. J. M. CAMPBELL RE-CALLED AND 
TESTIFIED FOR THE STATE. (Tr. 248).

Grady Swain arrested, brought to and placed 
in jail in Forrest City, on same day of his arrest I 
returned from Hot Springs and upon reaching 
Forrest City went directly to the jail as I had seen 
an account of the drownings in newspaper while 
on train, I found Mr. John I. Jones had him in an

— 43—



ante-room of the jail interrogating him about the 
drowning, he had told Mr. Jones before I reached 
the jail, so Mr. Jones told me, he and the one-eyed 
negro, Elbert Thomas, drowned the McCullom boy, I 
took the boy to Little Rock and placed him in the 
Penitentiary Walls to avoid them lynching him, 1 
had 1500 circulars struck and broadcasted through­
out the country, we put in our time hunting for the 
one-eyed negro, thinking all this time that he had 
drowned the boy.

Sometime after Grady had been in walls I made 
a trip to Little Rock and asked him how much 
money he and Thomas got and he told me that 
Thomas got the money which was a roll as large 
as a hoe handle, that he hid it and I went to find 
the money but could not.

Afterwards I went to the Walls, quizzed Grady 
as to the money and was returning with him on 
train to make him show me where it was or have 
him find it as before stated, at Lonoke a telegram 
was handed me stating that Elbert Thomas had 
been found drowned, Elbert Thomas was the per­
son whom the boy had been telling me helped him 
to drown the McCullom boy, for fear he would be 
lynched should I return to Forrest City with him I 
took him off the train at Carlisle and returned him 
to the Walls on next train. (Tr. 251).

— 44—



On way returning to the Walls of the Peni­
tentiary he told me he and Bell drowned them and 
I said, “ You are telling me a story” and he said, 
“ No Sir, I am not, we drowned them.”

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. J. M. 
CAMPBELL. (Tr. 258) :

In the pocketbook taken from Thomas’ pocket 
when recovered from the bayou was one fifty cent 
piece, two dimes and one nickel. (Tr. 258).

When and after I entered the ante-room at the 
time Grady was first brought to jail in Forrest 
City and Mr. Jones was quizzing and closely ques­
tioning him I cannot tell one word Mr. Jones said 
to the boy. In this conversation the boy was ad­
mitting he and Thomas drowned the McCullom boy, 
I talked to him several times, sometimes in the jail 
and sometimes I brought him out in the ante-room, 
and again in the Walls at Little Rock and in none 
of these conversations did he even suggest or in­
timate that the boy Bell had anything to do with 
the drowning, in fact Bell’s name was not mention­
ed during any of these times by Grady in connec­
tion with the drowning until shown the wire at 
Carlisle, which was one week or ten days after 
Grady had been in the Walls; I kept Grady in jail 
in Forrest City two or three days prior to taking 
him to the Walls at which time everybody thought

- 45-



Thomas had drowned the boy so the people in and 
around the McCullom store were forming lynching 
parties and preparing fires and getting ready for 
him when apprehended, on account of these fires 
and lynching parties I rushed the boy to the Walls.

Reiterates that he whipped Grady claiming he 
was impudent, he and Mr. Jones either of whom is 
twice as large as the boy took him out of jail and 
he both slapped and whipped him. (Tr. 263).

Repeats that the boy stated in jail and again 
on train that he and Thomas drowned the McCullom 
boy, both times however after he had bored down 
on him with many, many questions and quizzes. 
(Tr. 265).

That he made about one half dozen trips to 
Little Rock to see and quiz the Bell boy, was quite 
interested in case, was doing all he could, turning 
heaven and earth to fasten what he considered a 
crime on someone, he first fastened it on Thomas 
but when Thomas’ body was taken from bayou he 
fastened it on these two boys, he never saw the 
Bell boy whipped except the time he heretofore 
testified about, he saw Mr. Todhunter give the Bell 
boy a brushing, calls beating a boy with a raw-hide 
strap, four and one-half feet long by four inches 
wide “just a little brushing,”  Mr . Todhunter 
weighs 165 or 170 pounds. (Tr. 270). (Mr. 
Todhunter testified that he weighs 200 pounds).

— 46—



JOHN I. JONES BEING RE-CALLED TESTI­
FIED FOR THE STATE. (Tr. 307).

Repeats the conversation as to Grady’s arrest, 
being brought to and placed in jail, quizzed by 
him and statement that he and Elbert Thomas 
drowned the McC'ullom boy.

Q. Tell the jury what he (Grady) said?

A. He told me that he and Elbert Thomas 
drowned the McCullom boy, that was the one-eyed 
negro.

Q. He told you he and Elbert Thomas did it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. I presume the officers begun to get busy 
and look for Elbert Thomas?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What was said then by him, if anything, 
about Elbert Thomas?

A. Well, I questioned him quite a long time 
about where he thought Elbert was and he didn’t 
offer much information in regards to that, he asked 
me during my questioning of him, what they might 
do with him if they were to find Elbert Thomas 
dead. (Tr. 308).

Q. He told you he and Elbert Thomas drown­
ed the little McCullom boy?

A. Yes sir.
— 47—



Q. Did he seem to be indifferent about tell­
ing you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then he asked you what would be done 
with him if they were to find Elbert Thomas dead?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long after he was brought in?

A. He was brought in sometime in the after­
noon, I believe, I don’t remember just the day, I 
mean the time of day he was placed in jail.

Young Joe Campbell and Othello McDougal 
and myself took him out to question him about 
7 :00 o’clock, and Mr. Campbell, young Campbell, 
and McDougal, were called out on a telephone 
message and left the boy with me. It was after 
they left that he made the confession to me that 
he and Elbert Thomas killed this boy.

(Young Joe Campbell weighs about 170 
pounds, is about 30 years of age, is deputy sheriff 
and son of J. M. Campbell, sheriff, and Othello Mc­
Dougal is about 35 years of age, weight 200 pounds, 
chief of police of Forrest City. Both constantly 
carry guns buckled around them. (Tr. 309).

— 48—



CROSS EXAMINATION OF JOHN I. JONES. 
(Tr. 310):

Q. He denied until the officers left that he 
had anything to do with it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. He didn’t claim he had anything to do with 
it as long as the other officers were there?

A. He told them he was standing on the 
bridge and saw this negro, Elbert Thomas, do the 
killing.

Q. Who brought the little Swain boy up?

A. Mr. Ed Clinton. (Deputy sheriff).

Q. Mr. Campbell, I believe came in about 
that time?

A. He came in about 8:00 o’clock.

.Q Did he go back there and talk to him that 
night?

A. We continued talking to him after Mr. 
Campbell arrived to try to learn where Elbert 
Thomas was.

Q. You didn’t get anything out of him that 
night as to where Thomas was?

A. He told a half dozen yarns about Elbert 
Thomas.

Q. The little negro was scared?

— 49—



A . I don ’ t believe he was m uch scared.

Q. There was a good deal of excitment down 
in that community about the time the little boy was 
arrested ?

A. I suppose there was.

Q. There was a good deal of talking in that 
community about lynching Thomas?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The excitement of the people was very high 
in that community?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The little boy came from the midst of the 
excitement?

A. Yes sir.

Q. He was brought by a deputy sheriff under
arrest ?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You don’t know whether that deputy
sheriff talked to him or not?

A. No sir.

Q. They went so far as to build bon fires down
there didn’t they?

A. I don’t know.

— 50—



Q. Did you hear any conversation between 
the little darkey and Mr. Campbell wherein Mr. 
Campbell said, “ If they catch Elbert Thomas they 
will kill him in a minute?”

A. I didn’t, no sir.

Q. I believe you were out at the jail one day 
when Mr. Campbell gave one of the negroes a kind 
of general thrashing, wasn’t you?

A. That was at this time, Mr. Campbell whip­
ped him that night.

Q. He was very much interested in it, he whip­
ped him the first night he was brought in?

A. He tried to get him to tell where Elbert 
Thomas was; he felt like he knew.

Q. He got him back in the ante-room to the 
jail and closed the door and put it to him, didn’t he?

A. He hit him two or three times, he didn’t 
hit him hard.

Q. He hit him with a strap, I believe?

A. I think so.

Q. What did he hit him for?

A. He was trying to get him to tell the truth 
and the negro was impudent with Mr. Campbell to 
begin with.

— 51—



Q. In what way was he impudent?

A. Well, in his general manner of answering 
questions.

Q. How was he impudent?

A. His manner of answering Mr. Campbell.

Q. What was his manner?

A. He didn’t answer him, that is, as he 
thought he should.

Q. The manner was, the negro boy didn’t 
answer as Mr. Campbell thought he should, is that 
what you mean by impudent?

A. I don’t know how to define it to suit you, 
he didn’t answer him as a negro should answer a 
white man.

Q. Then you think if a negro doesn’t answer 
a white man like the white man wants him to 
answer, then he doesn’t answer him right?

A. It isn’t that exactly.

Q. Whether the answers are true or untrue, 
if the white man wants him to answer one way and 
he wants to answer another way, you think that is 
impudent and not treating the white man with re­
spect?

A . N o  sir. (T r . 3 1 2 -3 1 3 ) .

— 5 2 —



MR. S. L. TODHUNTER TESTIFIED:

“Because I had talked to him and I just kept 
on talking to him until he finally told me little by 
little, until he finally told all of it.”  (Tr. 220).

Q. What condition did you have him in the 
first time (whipping) ?

A. I made him lie down on the floor.

Q. Did you make him take his coat off?

A. I don't know whether I did or not, I ex­
pect I did if he had one on.

Q. On the floor, there is where you poured 
it to him?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Where was the next time you whipped
him?

A. Right in the stockade.

Q. Who was present when you whipped him 
then?

A. I kind of think Walter Harrison, a convict, 
was there, and this little boy. I know about 
that, I got him out and I was talking to him that 
morning and he kind of swelled up and I told him 
to get down on the floor and I hit him and he got 
up. I called Walter Harrison and told him to go 
and get the little negro and tell him to come over

— 53—



there. I made the little negro hold the negro’s head 
and I whipped him there. (Tr. 223).

Q. How often did you talk to him?

A. Probably every day and probably every 
two or three days, sometimes when I would have 
time, I went there and talked to that negro a solid 
hour, just him and me.

Q. Solid hour; was that before he confessed?

A. It was during the time he was confessing.

Q. You say you talked to him for a solid hour 
at the time he confessed?

A. I have done that.

Q. In this case?

A. The morning I whipped him.

Sometimes I would go into the stockade and 
talk to him and sometimes I would talk to him from 
the outside. There is a run-around around the 
stockade and sometimes I would go in there and 
talk to him. I have gone in there lots of times. 
I expect I have gotten a thousand confessions. (Tr. 
224).

STATEMENTS AS TO HIS CONFESSIONS. 
(Tr. 273) :

Q. I will ask you now, if .Robert Bell had any 
promise made to him or any words that would cre­

— 54—



ate fear, or anything of that kind?

A. No sir, not at that time. (Tr. 276).

Q. Did he make a free and voluntary confes­
sion about it or not?

A. Well, I don’t know that I could say that 
Bell ever made a free and voluntary confession. 
I got a confession out of him; it was by piece-meals. 
It never was free. Of course he told it without any 
threats. There never was anything voluntary 
come from the big negro. (Tr. 277).

Q. You begun pushing him (Swain) ?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And boll-weeviling him?

A. I don’t know what that is.

Q. You were pushing him and boll-weeviling 
him to get what he knew out?

A. I questioned him, yes sir. (Tr. 281).

Q. Do you know how long he had been there 
before he confessed to you?

A. No sir, I don’t know. I made no notes. 
I run that penitentiary.

Q. You are the hicockalarum over there?

A . Y e s  sir. (T r . 2 8 2 ) .

— 5 5 —



“ Doesn’t anybody have access to the whipping 
leather but myself.”

“ It has (whipping lash) a handle on it and is 
about four and one-half feet long and about two 
and one-half inches wide and made of Number one 
good cow hide.” (Tr. 283).

Q. Did you hit this boy pretty hard?

A. That black one, I did. (Tr. 284).

Q. What did you say to him?

A. Of course it would be natural to ask him 
where he was when they were drowned and 
whether he did it, whether he had anything to do 
with it and how it was done and all about it.

Q. I am not asking you about what would be 
natural; I want to know what you did and said to 
him?

A. Word for word, I couldn’t say. (Tr. 383).

Robert Bell was put in. the penitentiary several 
days after the Swain boy was, if you know when this 
boy was put in, I will say four or five days, maybe 
a week, probably ten days, I don’t know.
(Tr. 285).

Q. What is the stockade?

A. It is a place up in the cell building that we 
use for the rank men.

— 56—



Q. Rank men, what do you mean?

A. Those are the men that are worked under 
the guns.

Q. Then, you took this boy and put him up 
there where you put the desperate criminals?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And kept him up there too?

A. Yes sir. (Tr. 286).

Q. Who was with you the first time you 
whipped him (Bell) ?

A. I am not sure that anyone was, if anybody 
was, Mr. McCullom might have been up there, I 
don’t know whether he was or not.

Q. Wasn’t Mr. B. McCollum and Mrs. J. M. 
Campbell with you the first time?

A. I don’t think Mr. Campbell was there, I 
am not sure.

Q. You don’t remember anything except the 
confessions?

A. I remember all about the circumstances 
but I am pretty sure Mr. Campbell wasn’t there.

Q. Why are you so certain about the con­
fessions: why are you so uncertain as to all other 
things?

A. Because I worked on the negroes and not 
on Mr. Campbell.

— 57—



Q. What time did you whip the Bell negro? 

A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. You don’t know whether it was in the 
forenoon or afternoon?

A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know who was present?

A. I know there wasn’t very many present.

Mr. McCollum might have been there and Mr. 
Campbell might have seen it if he was there.

Q. You whipped him with the leather strap 
with a handle to it, about four and one-half feet 
long?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many times did you hit him, do you 
remember?

A. I don’t remember, probably eight or ten 
times.

Q. You might have hit him fifteen or twenty 
times, you don’t remember?

A. I don’t think I hit him that much.

Q. What position did you have him?

A. Lying on the floor. (Tr. 288).

Q. You were having a good time up there?

— 58—



A. Yes sir.

Q. You were enjoying yourself?

A. Not necessarily, I was at work.

Q. I understand you held him.

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you make him take his coat off?

A. If he had one on I made him take it off,
yes sir.

Q. How much do you weigh?

A. Two hundred pounds.

Q. You are a big, stout, healthy man?

A. Yes sir, perfect health so far as I know.

Q. You don’t know how many times you
struck him?

A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know whether you bruised and
lacerated him or not. (Tr. 289).

A. I am certain I did not.

Q-i Did you have an examination made of 
him to see.

A. He never complained of it, I’ll say that. 

Q. Did you ever ask him about it?

A .  N o  sir.
— 59—



Q. A man as big as you are, he would be 
afraid to complain.

A. That negro, look at him, he is in pretty 
good shape, he is pretty gay.

Q. That has been about two months ago, 
hasn’t it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Two months and twenty-seven days?

A. He has a pretty good memory.

Q. If you had been given that whipping two 
months and twenty-seven days ago you would have 
remembered, wouldn’t you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. It would have impressed you?

A. I expect it would. (Tr. 290).

Q. You seem to enjoy telling these people that 
you whipped those boys?

A. No sir, I never enjoy whipping.

Q. What are you laughing about?

A. I am laughing at this negro over here be­
cause he is laughing about holding that negro’s 
head.

— 60—



Q. Up to this time this negro hadn’t con­
fessed?

A. Yes sir.

Q. When did he confess?

A. He confessed; the negro had been in the 
penitentiary, I will venture to say, I expect a month 
before I ever touched him. He told me about the 
killing and he kept lying about where the money 
was and I whipped him to try to make him tell me 
where the money was. He told me three or four or 
five different places. First, he said he buried it 
under a log at the end of the boat, then he said 
he gave it to his father and then he said he hid it 
on the porch, in the batten between the door and 
window on the porch; and that last statement he 
made to me was that he gave it to this negro A. P. 
Campbell. (Tr. 291).

Q. How many times did you talk to him, 
about how many?

A. I expect fifteen or twenty.

Q. You made fifteen or twenty trips up in 
the stockade, trying to boll weevil this out of him?

A. I was trying to talk to him.

Q. Fifteen or twenty times?

A. I sat down and talked to that negro as 
much as an hour or more at a time, just him and me.

— 61—



Q. You were very much interested in the 
case?

A. I was interested in getting the facts and 
nothing else.

Q. I thought you testified a moment ago that 
he was very reluctant in giving you the facts?

A. Yes, sir. He was very reluctant; when he 
did tell me anything he would tell me something 
else, he didn’t tell the truth.

Q. He was very reluctant about telling you 
where the money was?

A. Yes sir.

Q. He was very reluctant about telling you 
he did the killing?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You had to boll weevil him several times 
before you could get it out of him?

A. I sweated him before he did.

Q. What do you mean by sweated?

A. 1 mean sweated down like you are sweat­
ing me right now.

Q. In other words you sat down and talked 
to him and boll weeviled him there until he told

— 62-



you something or you would have kept on if he 
hadn’t ?

A. Yes sir, I expect if I hadn’t got something 
out of him I would have had him there yet. (Tr. 
293).

Q. Do you do the other people who come to 
the penitentiary accused of crimes, the same way?

A. Very often I do.

Q. That is about all you do, isn’t it?

A. I seem to be giving satisfaction, I am 
drawing my pay.

Q. You have been sweating them since 1908?

A. Longer than that, since 1891.

Q. About thirty-five or forty years?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You are still sweating them?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And are still testifying when they come to 
you to go into court and testify, and you have been 
in courts since 1908, in this state, and you are still 
doing it?

A . Y e s  sir. (T r . 2 9 3 ) .

— 6 3 —



Q. Will you say positively that he wasn’t 
whipped on the outside of the stockade?

A. Yes, I will say that he wasn’t because the 
negro was whipped twice and I whipped him; no­
body was there to whip him.

Q. That is a privilege given to you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. A  God given privilege?

A. No sir, it is not given by God, it is given by 
the laws of the State of Arkansas. (Tr. 295).

Q. You had him locked in the stockade?

A. Yes sir, I run the stockade too.

Q. What made him unruly?

A. In the first place he was an inveterate 
liar; he was saucy and impudent but he isn’t now, 
he is a pretty good negro. He was a saucy, impu­
dent negro when he was there. Lots of times I 
would ask him questions and he wouldn’t answer 
it at all.

Q. Didn’t you testify this morning that the 
only two things, you claimed he was unruly and 
wasn’t clean, he would lie?

A. Yes sir, and I modified my answer like I 
answer new. (Tr. 295).

— 64—



Q. Did he ever offer you any resistance?

A. No sir.

Q. Did he ever offer to draw a knife on you?

A. He didn’t have one.

Q. Did he offer to draw a stick on you?

A. He didn’t have any.

Q. How was he unruly?

A. He was dirty in his cell, he didn’t help, he 
wouldn’t clean up like he ought to.

Q. He was dirty and wouldn’t clean up his 
cell, that is why you say he was unruly?

A. Yes sir. (Tr. 296).

Q. Did you go and get Bell, personally? 
(When written confessions were taken).

A. I am pretty sure I got him myself.

Q. Are you positive about that?

A. No sir, 1 wouldn’t be.

Sometimes Mr. Hargraves would ask a ques­
tion and then get it in shape so he would have to 
state to the stenographer like he wanted it. Of 
course, as you say, they ramble around. He, (Har­
graves) would language in words so he could get 
it. When they would get to talking about some-

— 65—



thing out of the case, something that wasn’t ma­
terial, he would say, “ I don’t want that, tell me 
about so and so that you did.”  I understood that 
he was working for the prosecuting attorney when 
he came over there. Sheriff Campbell was over 
and told me that he-said he would be over in a day 
or two, he was in Memphis. He said Hargraves 
would come over and get them. He came in a day 
or two after. (Tr. 301).

Q. Isn’t it a fact, that Mr. Hargraves, on two 
or three occasions while he was taking these con­
fessions, referred to those negroes and says, ‘ ‘You 
know you are telling a lie?”

A. I don’t think he did.

Q. Do you remember everything Hargraves 
said?

A. No sir. I don’t remember everything, but 
I know it was not that way because there was no 
disagreement between Mr. Hargraves and those 
negroes at any time.

Q. I expect he said everything he wanted 
them to while the guards were there?

A. There were no guards there.

Q. The chief whipper was there?

A. i was there.

— 66



I wouldn’t be positive as to whether I whipped 
the negro Before the time he gave the statement or 
not, I don’t think I did'.

Q. Will you say it (whipping) was or was
not?

A. I won’t say.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. TOD- 
HUNTER. (Tr. 304).

Whether I whipped him (Bell) before he made 
the written confession, I am not sure.

RANSOM McCOLLUM RECALLED TESTIFI­
ED FOR THE STATE. (Tr. 315).

The pocketbook was on inside of Thomas’ coat 
pocket. Thomas weighed 170 or 175 pounds, was 
stout and robust; Julius McCullom weighed about 
70 or 75 pounds; does not know what Julius had on, 
either socks or stockings, report was out that socks 
were found by someone but does not know by 
whom, when, where or before or after drowning 
nor the kind, character or description of socks nor 
personally that any were found; when undressing 
Julius after his body was taken out of bayou he 
found a safety pin in underwear but he does not say 
what part of underwear, neck, back, waist, shoul­
ders, front; he took from Julius’ pants pocket when 
undressed a penny and nickel; Thomas had 85 cents

— 67—



in pocket; a knife, box of sardines and English 
walnut. (Tr. 318).

Again testified as to fresh, soft muddy shoe 
tracks on seat of boat; does not know whether the 
Bell boy was at home of B. McCullom at time 
Julius and Thomas went to the bayou; he missed 
Julius just a little before night.

Q. That was when you detected that Julius 
was gone?

A. Yes sir, brother had missed him and he 
had been looking for him and had some of the folks 
out looking for him and had been calling him.

Q. How long had he been calling before you 
started looking for him?

A. About an hour.

Q. You started looking for him just before 
dark?

A. Yes sir. (Tr. 322).

Q. How long had this boy (Bell) been gone 
off on the horse with little Holbert before you 
noticed that Julius was missing?

A. 1 don’t know when the little boy left the 
store on the horse. (Tr. 323).

— 68—



Is the mother of Julius McCullom; the day 
before he drowned he was trapping, came home and 
pulled off his socks that evening (day of drowning)
I went home and found his socks and supporters.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF MRS. LENA Mc- 
CULLOM. (Tr. 325).

Did not see Julius dress that morning; does 
not know what he had on when drowned nor what 
he had on when he left home that morning.

Robert Bell came to her home that afternoon 
about 4:00 o’clock riding an old horse he came in 
and asked me didn’t I have something he could do 
for me, I let him help me for a while and I started to 
fill the lamps with oil, I said that I didn’t have a 
bit of oil and I told him to take the can, go to store 
and get me some, he had often been around the 
house helping me with my work, Julius was at the 
store when I left, he did not want to come home un­
less he could drive the car, I didn’t want him to take 
the car and got another way. (Tr. 328).

Is not positive when Bell got to her house that 
afternoon, it was before night because when he went 
to the store and came back on the horse with Hol- 
bert behind him it was kind of dusk dark, he 
brought the oil back to me and asked had Julius

M R S . L E N A  M c C U L L O M  T E S T IF IE D  F O R

T H E  S T A T E . (T r . 3 2 4 ) .

— 69



come and I told him no and for him to go back to 
the store and help in the store, he helped in the 
store selling oil and other things like that. I went 
home from the store in Mr. Devenson’s car. (Tr. 
329). I did not see Grady Swain that day. I did 
not see anything out of way, unusual or uncommon 
in shoes or clothes of the Bell boy that day.

JOHN PAYNE TESTIFIED FOR DEFEND­
ANTS. (Tr. 331).

Knew Julius, Elbert Thomas and had known 
Grady Swain three years, his home and that of 
Robert Swain is only about 400 yards apart; Grady 
stopped at his house 5 or 10 minutes about 3:30 
that afternoon coming from the direction of Mc- 
Cullom’s store going towards home, saw him again 
at his home same night about 7 or 8 o’clock. (Tr. 
332).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF JOHN PAYNE. 
(Tr. 333).

Lived between the McCullom store and Robert 
Swain on public highway.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JOHN 
PAYNE. (Tr. 335).

Was cutting wood when the boy stopped and 
talked to him.

— 70—



Lived on road between the McC'ullom store and 
the home of Robert Swain, saw Grady Swain pass 
by his home going from store towards home about 
2 :30 or 3 :00 o’clock that afternoon.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHELBY BURKE. 
(Tr. 339).

Is not related to Grady Swain nor did he see 
him afterwards on that day.

BOB SWAIN TESTIFIED FOR DEFEND­
ANTS. (Tr. 342).

Is the father of Grady Swain, remembers when 
Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas drowned, lived 
about one mile from the store at the time, could 
stand in his door and talk to John Payne, hauled 
wood and cut stalks that day until about 3:00 
o’clock, he then went up to the store, met Grady on 
road going home about 3 :30 o’clock, stayed at the 
store until after dark, went from store directly 
home, when he reached home John Payne and his 
wife were there, the next morning he went 
back to the store, Mr. McCullom told him his boy 
was drowned, that Grady was in it, he said he would 
go back and bring Grady to the store, returned 
home, got Grady, started back to the store, met the 
officers and they took Grady, Mr. McCullom said

S H E L B Y  B U R K E  T E S T IF IE D  F O R  D E F E N D ­

A N T S . (T r . 3 3 7 ) .

— 7 1 —



his boy was drowned and that Grady was in it, there 
were three or four officers, one of whom was Mr. 
Charlie Hulen. Grady was 14 year old last Aug­
ust, Grady can read and write a little bit.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF BOB SWAIN. 
(Tr. 346).

GRADY SWAIN RE-CALLED, TESTIFIED. 
(Tr. 348).

He left the McCullom store about 2 :30 o’clock, 
went straight home, met Mr. Jesse Grayson in the 
road, John Payne and Shelby Burke. Is not guilty 
of drowning Julius McC'ullom or Elbert Thomas, 
don’t know nothing about it, stayed at home re­
mainder of day. (Tr. 352).

The next morning papa come back from the 
store and said Mr. McCullom wanted me up there 
at the store to see what I knowed about it, so we 
started to the store and met Mr. Ed Clinton, Mr. 
Charlie Hulen and his boy, they took me in the car, 
drove to Chatfield and got Robert Bell and took us 
both to the store. Mr. Ed Clinton (a deputy sheriff) 
said if I didn’t tell the truth he would kill me if I 
didn’t know something about it and I told him I 
didn’t know nothing about it. (Tr. 352).

They kept me at the store two or three hours, 
while they was holding the inquest then they 
brought me to Forrest City and put me in jail; that

— 72 —



night Mr. Joe Campbell and Mr. Othello McDougal 
who is a tall man and Mr. John I. Jones talked to 
me when they put me in jail, the tall man (Mc­
Dougal) told me if I didn’t tell the truth they were 
going to kill me, that they didn’t want me in jail 
bleeding, then Mr. Joe Campbell and Mr. McDougal 
questioned me, Mr. Jones then put me back in jail 
where he kept me until that night when Sheriff 
Campbell come. (Tr. 355), Mr. Sheriff Campbell and 
Mr. Jones both questioned me, Mr. Jones took me 
back in the kitchen while Mr. Sheriff Campbell ques­
tioned Robert Bell. Mr. Campbell told Mr. Jones 
to take me back in the kitchen until he got Robert 
out to see what he knowed, he took Robert out and 
talked to him and then they brought me back, they 
let Robert back in jail but kept me there and told 
Mr. Charlie Henry to hand him the strap, he made 
me lie down on the floor and beat me, that scared me 
so I told him I knowed about it, I was not guilty, 
I talked as nice to Mr. Sheriff Campbell as a little 
nigger could to a white man, I didn’t talk impudent 
to him, he said he was going to whip me to make me 
know something about that drowning, he made me 
lay down by the side of the door in the little room, 
he told Mr. Jones to get on the far side of me, I 
stayed in jail in Forrest City for a while then he car­
ried me to Brinkley and brought me back one night, 
he told Mr. Charlie, white man in jail, to hand him 
the strop, he repeats that Mr. Campbell whipped

— 73—



him to make him know something about the drown­
ing, the next morning after he brought me back 
from Brinkley he took me to Little Rock, when I 
got there they took my picture, they kept me a few 
days and Mr. Campbell came and got me, on the 
train he showed me the letter, he questioned me 
all the way back but I told him I was not guilty, 
he told me he was afraid to bring me back to For­
rest City for they would lynch me as sure as two 
and two make four, when we got back to the Walls 
Mr. Todhunter made me pull off my coat, lay down 
on the ground and whipped me to make me say I 
knowed something about it. I told him I knew 
where some money was but I did not. The reason 
I told him this he was whipping me and I was 
scared, when I told Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tod­
hunter that I didn’t know nothing about that and 
they said “ that nigger ain’t telling the truth, I know 
what he needs and that was the leather.”  I had 
seen Mr. Todhunter whip other prisoners and was 
afraid he would whip me so I told him I knew where 
there was some money but I didn’t. The next day 
they took me out and I come out crying and told 
them I did know where it was. (Tr. 360).

Again repeats the circumstances of written 
confession and goes further saying they wrote one 
statement but tore it up for it did not suit them.

Mr. Todhunter whipped Robert and then they

— 74—



came back and got another confession which is 
the one introduced at the hearing. They said the 
first statement was not good. (Tr. 361-362).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF GRADY SWAIN. 
(Tr. 374).

I didn’t know what I was saying, he told me to 
sign and I signed because he told me to. If you 
(Mr. Smith) had been in the place I was you would 
have signed too. I had been whipped unmercifully 
to make me know and tell something about it. I had 
been whipped by Mr. Campbell two times and Mr. 
Todhunter one time. (Tr. 373). Denies seeing 
Henry Flowers or Raymond Ferguson. (Tr. 376).

Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. 
Jones and Mr. Campbell came up while you were 
talking?

A. He was questioning me then, and he was 
standing on that side, and in a little bit Mr. Camp­
bell come in and he told me How-de-do and I told 
him How-de-do Sheriff. He come in and asked me 
did I know anything about it and I told him, “ No 
sir” and Mr. John I. Jones took me back in his 
kitchen and they called this boy (Bell) and asked 
this boy did he know anything about it and he said, 
“ No sir.” Then he said ,“ That nigger didn’t know 
anything about it,” and he called me back and asked 
me did I know and I told him, “ No sir” and he told 
Mr. Charlie Henry to hand his strop out.

— 75—



Q. Then he began to beat you?

A. He made me lay down.

Q. What happened then?

A. I told them I knowed something about it 
after they whipped me but didn’t. (Tr. 377).

Denied that he told Mr. Jones that he and 
Elbert Thomas drowned the boy or that he asked 
him what they will do with him if they were to find 
Elbert Thomas dead. Says again that Campbell 
whipped him, carried him to Brinkley, brought him 
back and whipped him the second time.

That the only time Mr. Todhunter whipped him 
was when Mr. Campbell returned on train from 
Carlisle and placed him back in Walls. (Tr. 380).

He (Bell) told them in Little Rock after he 
was whipped that he and Robert Bell drowned the 
McCullom boy. Again admitted he signed written 
confession but also claims as before he did not know 
what he was doing and was scared not to. (Tr. 383).

ROBERT BELL RECALLED TESTIFIED. 
(Tr. 384).

Is 18 years old, his mother died when he was a 
small boy and was raised by a step-mother, did not 
know the McCullom boy was drowned until after his 
body was found, was at the store from about 11:30 
a. m. to 3 :30 or 4:00 p. m. Elbert Thomas also was

7 6 —



at the store so was Julius, part of time Julius was 
riding Robert’s horse up and down the road; Rob­
ert’s father carried the mail and received $28.00 
per month for same, he left the store riding this 
horse to the home of Mrs. McCullom which at that 
time was about one-half mile from store, he had 
been assisting Mrs. McCullom with her work, when 
he reached Mrs. McCullom’s home he asked her if 
she had anything for him to do, he remained at the 
home a short time then Mrs. McCullom told him to 
go to the store and get some coal oil, he took the 
oil can and he and Holbert McCullom rode the 
horse back to the store, drew the oil and he and the 
little boy returned on the horse to the home of Mrs. 
McCullom, after returning with the oil Mrs. Mc­
Cullom told him to take Holbert back to the store 
to stay with his father so he and Holbert returned 
to the store on the horse, after this Mr. McCullom 
sent him to Willie Thomas’ house to ask if they 
knew anything about Julius (or had heard him 
holler across the bayou). When I come back Mr. 
McCullom sent me back to his home to see if Julius 
was there. (Tr. 389).

Repeats that it was about 3:30 or 4:00 p. m. 
at the time he made the first trip to the home of 
Mrs. McCullom. He did not see Julius or Thomas 
after he left the store.

Mr. Charlie, a deputy sheriff, arrested 
him, took him to the McCullom store where 
they were holding the inquest, questioned him,

•77—



brought him to Forrest City and placed him in jail, 
he asked me if I knew anything about the drown­
ing and I told him “ No sir,”  that night Mr. J. M. 
Campbell took me out of jail into a little room and 
asked me if I knew anything about the drowning 
and I told him I didn’t. I was kept in jail in For­
rest City about one week and then young Joe Camp­
bell took me to Little Rock Walls, Sheriff Camp­
bell met us at the depot in Little Rock and went 
with us to the Penitentiary Walls, they put me in 
the stockade where I have been until they brought 
me back to court about one week ago.

After I had been in the stockade about two 
weeks Mr. Todhunter “ The Leather Pitcher”  whip­
ped me in the presence of Sheriff Campbell, and 
Mr. B. McC'ullom, he made me lay down on floor, 
take off my coat and whipped me on my back and 
struck me on my forehead knocking a knot up 
there about as large as a hen egg, he hurt me so 
bad I couldn’t lay on my sides nor back for some 
time nor could I sit down, he was trying to make me 
know something about the drowning, he whipped 
me all three times on Sundays. Mr. Campbell and 
Mr. B. McCullom were present and saw him whip 
me the second time, he whipped me twice on one 
Sunday and made me remove my coat and lay down 
face downward on my stomach, I had nothing on but 
my shirt and pants. (Tr. 397).

All of the three whippings occurred in the 
stockade.

— 78—



Q. State to the jury how you were held at 
the time Mr. Todhunter whipped you the second 
time?

A. I lay down on the floor and he whipped 
me once and stopped and rested a little bit. He 
questioned me around there and I said “ No sir, I 
didn’t know anything about it, I didn’t do it.” He 
got me down again and whipped me that time and 
I thought I would own up to it because I thought 
he was going to kill me that time that I said I 
didn’t do it. He called Grady Swain up there and 
he set down on my head, he was setting straddle my 
head. (Tr. 399) I had up to this time denied I had 
anything to do or know anything about it and con­
fessed because I thought he would keep whipping 
me if I didn’t confess.

He again denied the conversation with A. P. 
Campbell. (Tr. 400).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF ROBERT BELL. 
(Tr. 401J.

I made no admissions or confessions until af­
ter I had been whipped three times and then thought 
if I didn’t tell it they would kill me and didn’t want 
to be whipped any more. (Tr. 403).

Again denied telling A. P. Campbell that he 
and Grady Swain drowned Julius or Elbert Thomas. 
(Tr. 408).

— 79—



Says the only reason he told Mr. Todhunter 
and others where the money was hid in his father’s 
house was for the reason he continued to whip him 
and he was afraid. (Tr. 412).

Admitted signing the written statement but for 
the reason he was afraid he would get other whip­
pings. Mr. Todhunter was setting there by the 
strap and he thought he would use it again if he 
didn’t say yes sir and sign the paper. (Tr. 415).

Q. Was there anything said about Elbert 
Thomas having drowned him?

A. They said they reckoned he done it.

Q. When you were going up to this place in 
the house with Campbell it is claimed you had a 
conversation with Campbell about the little boy 
having been drowned, were the people in and around 
Hughes accusing Thomas of having drowned that 
child?

A. Yes sir, they were accusing Elbert of do­
ing that.

Q. They found the boy and didn’t find Elbert 
they thought Elbert had done it?

A. That is right.

Q. When you were going up to the house 
with the negro Campbell were you talking about 
what you had done or were you talking about what 
they accused Elbert of doing?

— 80—



A. What they accused Elbert; not about 
nothing I done.

Q. When you made the statement, “ If that 
is true, it was mighty bad,”  did you mean, if Elbert 
had drowned the boy it was mighty bad, you didn’t 
mean you had done wrong, did you?

A. No sir. (Tr. 318).

Q. Did you mean Elbert Thomas had done 
wrong?

A. Yes sir.

Q. After they said he drowned the boy?

A. Yes sir.

Q. That is what you and the negro Campbell 
was talking about?

A. Yes sir.

I was not impolite, nor did I talk cross or 
saucy to Mr. Todhunter. (Tr. 419). I did not 
know what I was signing when I signed the con­
fession. (Tr. 420).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF ROBERT 
BELL. (Tr. 420).

I answered the questions in confession but not 
of my own free will.

Q. Not being of your own free will, you knew

— 81—



the statements, at the time they were put down, 
were not true?

A. Yes sir.
Q. You signed something that wasn’t true 

and not of your own free will?

A. Yes sir, it wasn’t of my own free will. 
(Tr. 421).

GRADY SWAIN RECALLED BY THE STATE. 
(Tr. 422)

JOE COX TESTIFIED FOR THE STATE IN 
REBUTTAL. (Tr. 426).

Claims Grady passed his house about first dark 
that afternoon going from direction of the McCullom 
store towards home.

We had just got through unloading (wagon) 
and had turned two of the dogs loose, they begun 
to bark and “Somebody hollered”  and my daughter 
and myself stepped to the door and he said, “ Don’t 
let the dogs bite me” and I said, “ Go on, the dogs 
ain’t going to bother you.”  (Tr. 426).

CROSS EXAMINATION OF JOE COX. (Tr. 
428).

Q. How do you know that was Grady Swain?

A. I saw him the next morning after they 
brought him to the store.

Q. It was dark when you saw him the night 
before?

A. Yes sir.
— 82—



A r g u m e n t
It will be noted at inception of this case that 

Julius McCullom, a white boy in his twelfth year 
vigorous, robust, healthy, weighing 70 or 75 pounds 
“ and mighty strong for his age” (Tr. 59), and 
Elbert Thomas, a colored man in his 19th year, 
vigorous, strong, healthy and weighing 175 to 180 
pounds, were accidentally or by some person 
drowned in Cut-Off Bayou sometime between 4 :00 
p. m. and 5 :00 o’clock on the cool, clear and sunny 
afternoon, Thursday, December 29th, 1927, in front 
of and from 175 to 200 yards or steps of the glass 
front country story owned and operated by Mr. B. 
McCullom, father of Julius, facing the south, adja­
cent to and fronting the public highway leading 
from Forrest City to Memphis, Tennessee, at its 
junction with the public highway from Hughes 
running east and west parallel with Cut-Off Bayou 
and within 100 yards or steps of the point where 
the drowning is supposed to have occurred and 
hundreds of people pass and repass daily over this 
highway at the point and practically in view of the 
place of the accident.

It may be conceded that Julius McCullom, El­
bert Thomas, Robert Bell, a colored boy being in 
his 18th year of medium stature and weight, and 
Grady Swain, a colored boy, in his 14th year, of

— 83



light weight and small of stature, were at the store 
about 4:00 o’clock that afternoon which was the 
last seen of Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas 
alive, as disclosed by the evidence except that of 
Raymond Ferguson and Henry Flowers.

The closest approximation of the time is deduced 
from Mrs. Lena McCullom and Ransom McCullom 
who gave evidence that he returned from Hughes 
with a partial truck of merchandise about 3 :30 or 
4:00 o’clock that afternoon and upon reaching the 
store all of parties were in and around the store, 
however he paid but little if any attention to any 
one of them, noticed nothing suggestive, unusual or 
out of way in their looks, actions, conduct or man­
ners and he remained inside, in front of, and around 
the store waiting on various customers from that 
time until about dark.

Mrs. Lena McCullom, wife of B. McCullom, and 
mother of Julius McCullom, who was at the store 
on the return of Ransom McCullom with the mer­
chandise left the store in the car of Mr. Denerson 
about 15 or 20 minutes, after the return of Ransom 
McCullom, for her home which was between 
one-four and one-half mile distant; at the time of 
the departure of Mrs. McCullom,Julius was at the 
store for she says, “ He come out to the car and 
brought this little boy (Holbert) to me. He didn’t 
want to go home unless he could drive the car. I

— 84—



didn’t want him to take the car and got me a way.” 
(Tr. 328).

Mr. B. McCullom was in and around and re­
mained at the store all the afternoon. Sometime 
after Mrs. McCullom reached her home the Bell 
boy came in the store and purchased an article pay­
ing a nickle for same. Ransom McCullom waited 
on him. Both Ransom and B. McCullom were close 
to him but neither noticed anything unusual, out of 
the way or uncommon to him in his actions, looks, 
conduct, voice, clothes or shoes; if so they said 
nothing about it.

This boy who had been and was carrying the 
mail for his father when his father was busy or 
unwell from one small post office in bottoms to 
another small post office in the bottoms, owned or 
used an old and gentle horse which he rode and of­
ten stopped at the store, played with Julius and 
other McCullom children in and around the store 
and at their home and who would frequently ride 
horse up and down the highway for childish pleas­
ures.

According to the testimony of Mrs. McCullom 
about one-half or three-quarters (4:00 or 4:15) of 
an hour after she reached her home this 
boy came to her home riding over the same road this 
same horse, got down, came into the house 
and asked her if he could help her with her

— 85—



work as he had previously done many times. 
She looked at the milk and it was not turned, 
she then got the coal oil can to fill the lamps 
but ascertained it was empty so she gave him the 
can, told him to go to the store and get her some oil, 
he and Holbert McCullom, the young son of Mrs. 
McCullom, eight years of age, rode the horse to the 
store for and returned with the oil, riding the same 
horse, reaching the home of Mrs. McCullom at 
dusky dark. “ When he went to the store and come 
back on the horse he had the the other little boy, 
Holbert, with him, it was kinder dusky dark then. 
He brought my coal oil and asked had Julius come 
and I told him no and for him to go back to the 
store and help work in the store. He sometimes 
helped work in the store, some, selling oil and 
things like that.”  (Tr. 329). Q. Did you say it 
was half past four, or three quarters after four, or 
what time? A. Yes sir, about that time, it was 
before night, before dark because when he went to 
the store and came back on the horse he had the 
other little boy with him; it was kinder dusk dark. 
He brought my coal oil and asked me had Julius 
come and I told him no, and for him to go back to 
the store and help work in the store; he helped 
work in the store some, selling coal oil, and things 
like that. Q. How did you go from the store home? 
A. In Mr. Deverson’s car. Q. About three-quar­
ters of an hour after that this defendant came?

— 8 6 —



A. Yes sir he wanted to do something for me. 
Q. You sent him back down to the store for coal 
oil? A. Yes sir. Q. Your little boy was on the 
horse with him? A. Yes sir, he came up with him. 
Q. Back from the store? A. Yes sir, when he 
brought the oil. Q. Did you see this little negro 
(Swain boy) here during the afternoon at all? 
A. I am not sure whether I did or not. (Tr. 229).

Robert returned to the store on the same horse 
as directed by Mrs. McCullom where he remained 
until about 9:00 o’clock when he left on the same 
horse with A. P. Campbell for Campbell’s home 
where he spent the night.

It will be noted that Robert, an ignorant, un­
sophisticated country colored boy, was undoubted­
ly and unquestionably in the store on that clear and 
sunny afternoon in the presence of and close to and 
talked with both B. McCullom, the father, and 
Ransom McCullom, the uncle, and in the same 
evening twice at the home and in the presence of 
and talking to Mrs. Lena McCullom, the mother, 
and in the presence of and played with the chil­
dren, brothers and sisters, of Julius, yet no one of 
the three competent, capable and intelligent wit­
nesses noticed or detected anything out of the way, 
unusual or uncommon in his voice, eyes, actions, 
conduct, demeanor or movements or that his shoes, 
or socks, or clothes were wet, and again that night

— 87—



for something like or near three and a half hours 
he was in the store in the presence of and with the 
same Ransom and B. MeCullom and many others 
all of whom were talking of the death of Julius and 
all of whom knew there were six inches of muddy 
water in the boat and the water in the bayou was 
also muddy but no witness says his looks, conduct, 
actions, manners, demeanor, voice or eyes were un­
usual, unnatural or even suggested suspicion or 
that any of his clothes, shoes or socks were wet or 
muddy and the same is true the following morning 
when the inquest was being held by the coroner, 
coroner’s jury and in the presence of these wit­
nesses and both boys before them and being quiz­
zed by them, in the hands of and under guard of 
three deputy sheriffs who were with them from 
early morning until late that afternoon. It is in- 
conceiveable, yea, reprehensible in what way, how, 
or manner a conclusion could be reached or even 
surmized that the Bell boy could have been in the 
boat with water six inches deep and not have got­
ten his shoes and clothes wet and muddy, especi­
ally his shoes and the lower part of his trousers. 
This is the third time from tradition or writings we 
have a record of a person walking on water without 
getting wet; first, Christ; second, the founder of 
the Mormon Church, and third, Robert Bell. 
It may be suggested that he changed his shoes and 
clothes but this cannot be correct according to the

— 88—



verbal and written confession as he/ went from 
the boat direct to the store and purchased an article 
paying therefor five cents. How can statements, 
“ Then I tilts the boat one sided and pushes Elbert 
out whiles Grady holds Julius in the boat” and 
“ Yes sir, I just pitched him in the bayou and came 
on to the bank.”

If Raymond Ferguson and Henry Flower are 
correct and to be believed in their statements then 
the Bell boy was beyond all peradventure at the 
home of Mrs. Lena McCullom at the time they saw 
Julius McCullom, Grady Swain and Elbert Thomas 
cross the wire fence and proceed towards the bayou. 
This is what Raymond Ferguson says:

Q. You say you live about a mile and a half 
from there (store) ? A. Yes sir. Q. When you 
got there at the store, you saw those boys going 
through the fence and you remained about twenty 
minutes? A. Yes sir. Q. Then you drove on 
home? A. Yes sir. Q. When you got home it 
was night? A. Yes sir. Q. You had a mile and a 
half to go? A. Yes sir. Q. And you didn’t see 
this boy (Bell) there at all? A. No sir. (Tr. 103). 
To the same effect is the testimony of Henry Flow­
ers. If this evidence be correct then Julius and 
Elbert were alive just about sunset at which time 
Robert Bell was unquestionably at the home of 
Mrs. McCullom for she testified, “ It was before

— 89—



night, before dark, because when he went to the 
store and came back on the horse, he had the other 
little boy with him, it was kinder dusky dark then.0 
(Tr. 328).

It will be recalled that Robert had ridden the 
horse from the store to the home of Mr. McCullom, 
procured the oil can, returned to the store with little 
Holbert, gotten the oil and returned reaching the 
McCullom home with the oil at dusky dark which 
being true it must have been an hour or more since 
he followed Mrs. McCullom home a short time after 
she left Julius when he wished to carry her home 
from store in the McCullom car. Even a casual 
consideration of these facts will clearly and con­
clusively disclose it to be physically impossible for 
the Bell boy to have been at the place where the 
accident occurred. Other strange and remarkable 
incidents surround this unfortunate situation in 
many respects.

MRS. LENA McCULLOM TESTIFIED.

Q. Who was with him? A. When he first 
came. Q. Yes. A. By himself, on a horse, he 
come in and asked me didn’t I have something he 
could do and let him help me for a while and I start­
ed to fill the lamp with oil and I didn’t have a bit 
of oil and he said let me go and get some. Q. You 
say you left the store about 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock?

— 90



A. Between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock. Q. Sometime 
between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock you left Julius at the 
store? A. Yes sir. Q. Where was Julius when 
you left? A. He came out to the car and brought 
this little boy (Holbert) to me. He didn’t want 
to go home unless he could drive the car and I didn’t 
want him to take the car and got me a way. Q. 
What time in the afternoon did this boy (Bell) get 
to your house? A. I am not positive about the 
time. Q. Sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 
or what time? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you say it was 
about half-past four or three-quarters after four, 
or what time? A. Yes sir, about that time, it was 
before night, before dark, because when he went 
to the store and came back on the horse he had the 
other little boy (Holbert) with him; it was kinder 
dusk dark then. He brought my coal oil and ask­
ed me had Julius come and I told him no and for 
him to go back to the store and help work in the 
store; he helped work in the store some selling oil 
and things like that. (Tr. 328-329).

This time agrees in every respect with that of 
Mr. McCullom. Q. What time of day was that 
(When the Bell boy and Holbert came for oil) ? 
A. It was about sundown when my brother was 
fixing to go home and Robert Bell came back to the 
store and told me that the boy wasn’t at home. I 
sent him and the other little boy to the house after

— 91—



him and Eobert said he wasn’t there and he wasn’t 
at the store and I became alarmed at the time, it 
was getting later and he had never stayed off that 
late before. (Tr. 34). It will be seen the Bell boy 
had been to the home of Mrs. McCullom and he and 
Holbert had ridden the horse to the store for the 
oil before Mr. McCullom sent him back to his home 
for Julius.

“ I went down to the bayou and called him.” 
“ We sent out a searching party in that direction.” 
“ At that time we thought possibly both were 
drowned.”  “ He (Bell) was there about all day and 
he came in the afternoon several days previous to 
that and let my little boy ride his horse.”  (Tr. 43).

Q. What time did he (Bell) leave your store 
and go down to your residence? A. Well it was 
about, as I remember around five o’clock. He took 
my other little boy on the horse with him up to the 
house to ask my wife if there was anything that she 
wanted him to do. He left the store about five 
o’clock riding his horse and took my little boy back 
behind him and went up to my house. (Tr. 44). 
He came back and told me Julius wasn’t down there.

(Tr. 45). Julius left the store about 3:30 or 4:00 
o’clock, (Tr. 46). Julius left the store something 
like three-quarters or one hour before the Bell boy 
went with Holbert to McCullom’s home. (Tr. 49). 
The Bell boy and the Swain boy were in the store

— 9 2 —



with other boys. (Tr. 53). He again says it was 
about 4:30 or 5:00 o’clock when Robert Bell and 
Holbert left the store for home. To the same effect 
Ransom McCullom. (Tr. 80).

The court will take judicial notice the sun set 
on December 29th, 1927, last at 5:03 p. m. “We are 
of the opinion we can conclusively presume that the 
home of McCullom is a distance of one-fourth to 
one-half mile of store; that Mrs. McCullom depart­
ed for her home about 4:00 p. m. and Julius was 
alive at car, talked to her at time she was leaving 
store in car. Thus far is agreed by all parties, 
Mrs. McCullom, Mr. McCullom and Ransom Mc­
Cullom and Robert Bell; Robert left on the old gen­
tle horse following Mrs. McCullom over same road 
to her house, alighted, entered house, conversed with 
Mrs. McCullom about churning, she examined milk 
which was not ready to churn, examined the lamps 
and found them empty, procured oil can, directed 
Robert to take same to store for oil, he and little 
Holbert, eight years old, got on same old gentle 
horse, returned to the store, filled can with oil, 
made a trip to Mr. Presley Jackson’s (a distance of 
one-half or one-fourth mile of store) purchased an 
article for five cents, again got on same old horse 
with same little boy, returned, reaching the Mc­
Cullom home, he and the little boy got down and 
entered the house with oil at about dusk dark at

— 9 3 —



the very latest time given by any witness, hence ac­
cording to human events and common knowledge 
of movements of boys we are forcefully, nay irresist- 
ably driven to the conclusion that this boy 
was at the store as he testified he was at 
the time Mrs. McG'ullom left the store in car 
and in a few minutes followed her to her 
home, and was at the McCullom store or on the 
horse going from or to the store or at the home of 
Mrs. McCullom at the time of the accidental drown­
ing or if we take the testimony of Mrs. McCullom. 
Q. How long after Julius left (store) was it before 
this boy (Bell) went with your little boy (Holbert) 
up to your house? A. “ Something like three- 
quarters of an hour or an hour.”  We are driven 
to the same unquestionable conclusion for he had 
ridden same horse over the same road, had same 
conversation with Mrs. McCullom, returned and we 
find him at the store with little boy within 
three-quarters of or an hour after disappearance of 
Julius. In other words according to the theory of 
the State he and Grady Swain had done all of those 
remarkable, unnatural and impossible things touch­
ing the conjectured drownings and he had made 
this trip within three-fourths of or one hour which 
would be utterly impossible for he and the little 
boy were not in the store until after he had been 
to the home of Mrs. McCullom and returned, or 
further all of incidents in written and oral confes-

94—



sions respecting the drowning plus trip to, remain­
ing at and from the McCullom home would have 
had to transpire within three-fourth of or one hour 
from the time Mrs. McCullom departed from store 
in car, for according to the testimony of every wit­
ness Bell was at the store just before sundown with 
the little 8-year-old McCullom who had come 
from home on horse with him. He left the store 
and returned with same little boy for the McCullom 
home.

The same marvelous and remarkable circum­
stances surround the little Swain boy for the only 
scintilla of evidence connecting him with the lam­
entable circumstance in the remotest degree is testi­
mony of Joe Cox and Ransom McCullom. It is con­
ceded he was at the store that unfortunate after­
noon at directions of and purchased for his mother, 
soap; returned and reached home about 4:00 o’clock 
as testified to by himself, his father and John Payne 
at which time Julius was at the store and car talk­
ing to his mother, which is not denied nor con­
troverted by a single witness except Joe Cox who 
says, “ At first dusk dark we had just unloaded and 
had turned two of my dogs loose; they commenced 
barking and somebody hollered and my daughter 
and myself stepped to the door and he said ‘don’t 
let the dog bite me’ and I said ‘Go on, the dogs ain’t 
going to bite you.’ ”  (Tr. 427), who on cross ex­
amination, (Tr. 428) :

— 95—



Q. Do you know where he was before that, 
all afternoon? A. No sir, I didn’t know him, I 
didn’t know there was a Grady Swain in the world.
Q. How do you know that was Grady? A. I 
saw him the next morning, after they brought him 
to the store (McCullom). Q. It was dark when 
you saw him the night before? A. Yes sir.

RANSOM McCXJLLOM:

The last time he saw the Swain boy was about 
one or two o’clock which was prior to going to 
Hughes for merchandise and who was playing in 
and around the store with other boys among whom 
was Julius. He saw Julius upon his return but did 
not see the Swain boy. The same is true both as to 
Mr. B. McCullom and wife. This boy no doubt as 
he testified returned home during the absence of 
Ransom McCullom. The next heard of this boy we 
find Ransom McCullom in the night time, not in 
the house, not on the gallery but in the back yard 
of the home of Robert Swain, with light burning 
in house, boy in bed and covered up. Mr. McCullom 
does not advise how close he was to the house, 
whether in or not in car, whether engine running 
or still, quiet or making a noise, but the most sug­
gestive of all is why he should be brousing in the 
back yard in the night time and not making the in­
quiry at the front door. This witness was moulded 
by the same pattern of all witnesses for the State as

9 6 —



he could and did give what the boy said but not 
what he said. It is something out of the ordinary 
that he remained in the back yard in the night time 
with doors closed, the boy in bed under cover in 
the winter time and hear, “ He told me he could 
prove by big Henry and another fellow or two that 
he had not been with Julius that day, that evening 
at all” (Tr. 84). which is the same big Henry who 
testified that B. McCullom went to the bayou and 
pointed out to him where Julius and Thomas 
drowned. (Tr. 92).

It must be borne in mind that the 14-foot boat 
in a muddy bayou and six inches of muddy water 
in boat was within 175 or 200 steps or yards of the 
front door of the store, both father and uncle of 
Julius in and around the store, customers going in 
and coming out, hundreds of people daily passing 
to and fro, east and west over the public highway 
parallel with and between the store and bayou at 
a distance of possibly 100 or 125 steps, beaten path 
leading from the store to and through an open 
pasture and across the bayou at the point of lo­
cation of boat, school building on opposite side of 
bayou and school possibly in session, on a clear, 
bright and cloudless sunny day, and at a place 
where the father or any other person could have 
stood in or near store door and have seen the Bayou, 
a boy who had been a friend and a boon companion

— 97—



of and played with Julius for four long years could 
conceive and perpetrate one of the most damnable 
and heinous crimes known in criminal laws accord­
ing to the theory of the state, yet and in addition to 
all of this not a sound is heard, no crys made, no 
commotion, no hollering, no calls for help, no 
clothes torn nor ripped, no bruises, no scratches, no 
lacerations, no contusions on head, body, face, 
limbs, no clothes, shoes nor socks wet nor muddy, 
no pockets torn, no pockets ripped, no pockets 
wholly nor partially inside out. Then immediately 
after consumation of this most diabolical and in­
human crime the identical boy quietly, undisturbed 
and without chagrin returns to the store of the 
father, purchases with the nickle claimed to have 
been taken from Julius an article in front of and 
from and before the same father and uncle, and 
then to the home of the mother with continued 
complacency and resume the placid and friendly 
play, companionship and association of the little 
brother as of yore. This is incompatible, inconsist­
ent and repugnant to the instinct of a negro boy. 
If it had been the will or desire of this ignorant and 
benighted boy to have hurt or harmed Julius he no 
doubt within the four years of close association had 
many opportunities but the state through its mouth 
pieces shouts robbery. Why not robbery prior to 
this? Why rob at this place and particular time 
within 175 or 200 steps and in plain view of father,

— 98—



mother, uncle and little play mate, Julius this after­
noon had only a knife and six cents. This was all 
and all were taken from his pocket when recovered 
from bayou. Why wait until Julius was with a man 
who weighed 175 or 180 pounds? The combined 
weight of Julius and Elbert Thomas was about 250 
pounds and that of the two boys could not have 
been more than 225 pounds.

Not a jot nor tittle of evidence discloses that 
Julius or Elbert had or had ever had money. Who 
testified that they or either of them at any time had 
money? How did Julius get the money, none was 
taken from the store, none from home, none was 
missed by father, nor by mother, nor by uncle, he 
was seen with none, was only a school boy, did noth­
ing to earn money, an unemployed school boy, no 
money found, none located, none seen since death 
save the nickel and copper cent taken from his 
pocket since recovery of body. Neither the father, 
nor mother, nor uncle claim he on that date or 
any other date had money except a few cents his 
father and mother gave him as fathers and mothers 
do in case of children. Thomas, a worthless and 
shiftless hanger-on in and around the store, was one 
of those characters who neither accumulated nor 
had money. Not a human being testified that he has 
at anytime or place ever seen or heard of him having 
money. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. McCullom nor Ran-

— 99—



som McCullom claim or even intimate that he had 
money. None of them saw him with money. He 
did nothing to make money. When his body was 
recovered from the bayou 85 cents were taken from 
his pocket. Not a witness has surmized nor ven­
tured a suggestion that either the Bell boy nor the » 
Swain boy ever conjectured that the McCullom boy 
or Thomas on that date or on any other date had 
money. No proof to show that either had money 
then or any other time. No proof to show that the 
Swain boy or the Bell boy knew the trap was on 
bayou or that either knew that the McCullom boy or 
Thomas was nor intending to go to the bayou.

Does it comport with reason, common sense or 
judgment that these two boys would have taken a 
part of money and left the knife and a part in his 
and Julius’ pockets, not torn a pocket, or ripped a 
pocket, nor wholly nor partially turned a pocket 
inside out. In all of searches, researches, hues, 
crys, whippings, slappings, beatings, intimidations, 
threats, incarcerations in jails, calabooses, dun­
geons, quizzing, boring, boll weevilings and"“ Sweat 
Downs” not a cent of money has been found nor 
proven that Julius nor Thomas at or before their 
deaths had money nor that either Robert or Grady 
has had or been seen with money nor spent one 
cent except one paltry five cents. Why take this 
five cents from Julius’ pocket and leave another 
five cents, penny and knife?

— 100—



Upon the discovery of the body of Julius the 
toscin was sounded, a certain portion of the pop­
ulace as is usual in such cases gathered and be­
came boisterous, built fires, brought out the ropes, 
armed themselves with six-shooters, formed burn­
ing parties and lynching brigades, threatening the 
life and thirsting for the blood of Thomas. The 
country far and wide was combed and in these tur­
bulent conditions these two boys were arrested, 
1500 circulars broadcast offering $500.00 reward 
for Thomas, dead or alive, taken to the scene and 
surrounded by and hearing these threats, possibly 
saw the fires and ropes, were questioned, quizzed 
by these parties, both denied any knowledge of the 
drowning, both protested their innocence, both 
taken to and placed in jail in Forrest City about 
3 :00 o’clock p. m. where they remained until about 
7 :00 o’clock that night, both brought out, question­
ed by Joe Campbell, son and deputy sheriff under 
his father, J. M. Campbell, and Othello McDougal, 
the tall man, chief of police of Forrest City who 
has not for more than four years been seen on the 
streets, day or night, without a six shooter protrud­
ing from his hip pocket who told the Swain boy, 
“ The tall man told me if I didn’t tell the truth they 
were going to kill me,” he said “ We don’t want you 
in jail bleeding.” (Tr. 354). At this juncture 
Deputy Sheriff John I. Jones, and Sheriff Campbell, 
who on page 26 of transcript says “ I think it will

— 101 —



be sworn that he has already confessed” and also 
on same page he says I was not “ present and aiding, 
abbeting and encouraging others to whip them,” ap­
peared upon the scene, young Joe Campbell and 
McDougal having played their part withdrew, the 
Swain boy is taken to the kitchen by Jones while 
Campbell quizzes Robert Bell who denied any 
knowledge of the reputed crime and then Bell is 
returned to jail cell, Grady is returned to ante­
room from the kitchen and is beseeched, quizzed 
and questioned, slapped and whipped by Campbell 
for the purpose of refreshing his memory and mak­
ing him know something about money and drown­
ing, the boy also protested his innocence, he was 
on that or the next night taken to and placed in the 
jail in Brinkley where he was confined for some­
time, then returned to Forrest City jail and from 
there taken to the penitentiary walls to avoid being 
lynched or burned at which place he remained un­
til court convened. Robert Bell was kept in jail 
for a few days, then carried to the Penitentiary 
Walls, placed in a dungeon where he continuously 
remained till court convened when both were re­
turned to Forrest City and placed in a cell in the jail.

This is a chronological history of facts thus far 
except on the afternoon of the 29th. Grady’s 
mother sent him to the store to purchase soap. He 
remained at the store a short time and then return-

102—



ed home where he remained until arrested the 
following morning.

Are we to place one particle of credence in 
the testimony of A. P. Campbell the worthless and 
shiftless lackey in and around the McCullom store 
with whom Robert Bell spent the remainder of 
night after 9:30 who with Robert rode Robert’s 
horse from the store to Campbell’s home, taking 
only about 20 minutes, talking about nothing except 
seven negro girls on the way, who had been accused 
of the supposed drowning of Julius and Elbert, ar­
rested, placed and confined in jail in Forrest City 
several days and nights, several times given the 
third degree, who had been in and around the 
store, numbers of nights and days, seen the fires 
and ropes, heard talking of both burning and lynch­
ing Thomas if apprehended alive but said nothing 
to defend'or protect innocent Thomas, well know­
ing he would be lynched or burned, subsequent to 
occurrence and prior to his arrest and being placed 
and held in jail never breathed to a human being 
one jot told to him by Robert pertaining to the sup­
posed drowning until he was given a “ Gentle 
brushing” in the same ante-room to the same jail 
by the same Mr. Campbell after which, not 
prior, he recalled that Robert, without rhyme 
or rhythm “Blurted” out that he drowned 
Elbert and Grady drowned Julius without be-

— 103—



ing asked when, where, how, motive or reason 
and without Robert telling him the cause, the pur­
pose, the manner or the mode. He asked no ques­
tions nor did Robert say more or less, robbery not 
being mentioned, yet if he is to be believed he goes 
placidly, peacefully and undisturbedly on in his quiet 
and happy way from that night until the second 
week in January following without chirping this 
to anyone and not until accused, arrested, placed 
and held in jail several days, given the third degree, 
sweated and a “Little Brushing” with the “Trusted 
Hame String” and forced written confessions were 
read to him we suppose by the same Mr. Campbell 
the weilder of the “Leather strap hame string” and 
probably a spanking after and before by his good 
and faithful Mr. McCullom.

If a particle consideration is to be given A. P. 
Campbell then we must come to the irresistible 
conclusion that Robert’s shoes on night of purported 
drowning were perfectly dry.

Q. Did he have on boots or shoes? A. He 
had on shoes. Q. Low water or high water shoes; 
high top shoes or low shoes? A. Low shoes. 
Q. You saw him and knew him and associated with 
him right there in the store and you say his shoes 
were perfectly dry? A. Yes sir. (Tr. 110).

It is contrary to all reason and common sense 
that Robert should make such a statement to this

— 104—



witness and yet not tell him, the manner, nor the 
reason, nor the cause, nor the purpose he and Grady 
did the drowning and Campbell not to ask him the 
cause, the purpose, the place nor when nor where 
nor for what reason, neither money nor robbery 
mentioned, and permit Robert to go to and sleep 
at his home and in his bed and associate with him 
knowing him to be the most damnable, blood-thirsty 
assassin and the following day and many days and 
nights thereafter realizing that an innocent man 
was being sought by the infuriated populace and 
officers and if apprehended severely dealt with, 
probably burned,or lynched and notwithstanding 
all of this he says nothing until after being accused, 
arrested, placed in jail, sweated and “ Doctored 
with extracts of hame string tea” and confronted 
with extorted written confessions nevertheless prac­
tically all of this time the entire country was at 
fever heat and thirsting for the blood of Thomas 
whom he well knew to be as innocent as a new born 
baby.

It does not comport to nor in accord with 
reason that he was non-communicative of what he 
claims Robert told him on account of fear, for no 
one pursuant to his statement knew Robert had 
communicated this information to him, certainly he 
was not afraid of Grady nor Robert, neither the Mc- 
Culloms, nor their neighbors, friends nor officers

— 105—



would have hurt him for telling the truth, hence 
who was he afraid of?

Is the fabrication of A. P. Campbell respecting 
the conversation with the Bell boy or the exposition 
of Robert Bell in accordance to reason? Campbell 
says that absolutely and unquestionably nothing 
was said by him nor Robert except Robert “ Blurt­
ed out” “ He told me he drowned Elbert Thomas and 
Grady Swain drowned Julius McCullom,” when we 
bear in mind these parties were at the store for 
about three and one-half hours during all of which 
time all of the McCuloms, their neighbors and 
friends were in and around the store and in the 
presence and hearing of Campbell and the Bell 
boy discussing the unfortunate occurence, all of 
whom after the recovery of Julius’ body were sur­
mizing for some unknown reason Thomas had 
drowned him. The most natural thing would be 
for Campbell and Robert and no doubt both were 
discussing the drowning and referring to what they 
had heard at the store previous to their departure. 
No doubt at that time both were of the opinion 
Thomas was guilty of the supposed offense, so how 
natural, reasonable and in accordance with com­
mon sense and human thought would it be for 
Robert to say “ If Elbert had drowned Julius it was 
mighty bad.”  Julius was his playmate, his com­
panion, his associate, his friend, one with whom he

106—



had spent hours of childish pleasures, with whom 
he had ridden the old horse time after time up and 
down the road and each of whom would have suf­
fered crucifixion for the other. Robert says both 
were talking about the drowning which would be 
perfectly natural, however Campbell says nothing 
whatever was said about it except Robert blated 
and blurted out that he drowned Thomas and 
Grady drowned Julius which is both unnatural and 
unbelievable. No human with reasonable intelli­
gence could or would place the remotest belief in 
Campbell’s unnatural and unthinkable prevarication 
which is not idiotical nonsense.

The first act of the Drama is concluded, cur­
tain falls, scene shifts to the Penitentiary Walls, ac­
tors, Mr. B. McG'ullom, the father, witness of the 
disgraceful and unlawful scenes at and near his 
store, man sufficiently financially blessed to employ 
and pay expert non-resident stenographer, three 
private attorneys one of whom is also a non-resident 
to assist the state’s attorney in procuring evidence, 
true or untrue, prosecuting these illiterate, innocent, 
ignorant, benighted, helpless and poverty stricken 
colored boys and who had been present, sanctioning 
and encouraging the inhuman mistreatment and 
unmerciful whippings of these two brow beaten 
and scared boys as though they were worthless 
country cur dogs, one of whom had been only a

— 107—



few days before his servant, did his bidding, his 
wife’s and children’s, running errands for him and 
his wife and assisting her with chores in and around 
her home and companion of and playing with their 
children, who had not at any time previously even 
seen in a courtroom, nay never accused nor sus- 
picioned of a crime, never taken anything from his 
store nor home, whose conduct was above reproach, 
actions honest, words truthful, in whose presence 
and company he had confided the complacency of 
his children during four long years, acting honestly 
and uprightly so much so that he entered his home 
at his will and trusted behind his counters with his 
cash, and J. M. Campbell, sheriff, the slapper, the 
leather hame string whipper of a little 14-year-old 
boy whom he had made lie down on jail floor, the 
law violator, the law enforcer, the night quizzer 
and the much-ado-about-nothing who made trip af­
ter trip to the Walls boring these boys, if not why 
was he making them, who was turning heaven and 
earth trying to fasten what he supposed and sur­
mized to be a crime on someone, first upon Thomas, 
so when he was removed from the bayou then on 
these poor boys, one of whom was motherless, first 
denying seeing Todhunter whip either of them and 
then admitting he saw young Bell whipped by him 
one Sunday morning. This was the sheriff on Sun­
day when he should have been at home at church 
serving his God or on his knees praying with these

— 108



benighted children. Not at church nor on his knees 
but standing by, sanctioning and approving the ac­
tions of the warden who was violating every law 
and all justice everytime he raised his scorpion cow­
hide leather lash and with all his herculean 200 
pounds strength forced it down upon the bare back 
of the totally helpless and motherless boy who no 
doubt thought God himself had deserted and aban­
doned him, the sheriff whose duty it was to protect 
this boy and who called a beating on the bare back 
with a four and a half feet long by three and a half 
inches wide cow-hide leather strap in the hands of 
a strong, healthy, robust and active middle aged 
man and while being held by the Swain boy who was 
sitting astride his head only “ A brushing” yet 
leaving him in such a pitiable, lacerated, bruised 
condition he could neither sit nor lie on his sides 
or back (Tr. 395) and leaving a knot on his fore­
head as large as a hen egg (394), who was so im­
pervious to his sworn duty and paid so little atten­
tion to the “Brush” claiming it was only two feet 
long, who was uncertain whether it had a handle 
and that Mr. Todhunter weighed only 165 or 170 
pounds when in truth and fact a child of mediocre 
mind of only ten years of age would have known 
this “Brush” was more than two feet long and Tod­
hunter weighed upwards of 200 pounds, who says 
the Bell boy confessed before he was whipped yet 
he was in Forrest City and the boy in the Walls in

— 109—



Little Rock, who testified he confessed “ Without 
any whipping” but did not say when nor where; 
admits the Bell boy did not confess to or before him 
before he was whipped. Did he confess after the 
fiasco in the office in State Walls at night time, 
doors barred, curtains down, lights on in the pres­
ence of and surrounded by the same Mr. Todhun- 
ter who was in reach of the same bull whip, the 
same Mr. McCullom who was betraying him as 
Judas betrayed Christ, or did he confess to him up­
on his return to Forrest City and on being thrown in 
prison just prior to or on convening of court. 
Neither Campbell nor McCullom claim or pretend 
he confessed to either before he was whipped in 
walls. Mr. Campbell was exhuberant and lavishing 
time after time, and time again repeating what the 
boy said as on pages 208 and 210 he quotes from 
memory verbatim the same rubber stamp, written 
confession of the Bell boy with such anxiety and 
pleasure he requested the state’s attorney to “ Let 
me finish”  without interruption; he can and does 
from memory after hearing the boy give his con­
fession only once repeat word for word, letter for 
letter going into and giving every detail and 
particular, relating it letter for letter, syllable by 
syllable, word for word and sentence by sentence.

Q. How many times did you say you had 
brought these boys out? A. I don’t know, Mr.

— 110—



Lanier, I guess a half-dozen times. Q. Who was 
with you the first time you brought them out to 
the ante-room? A. I think Mr. John I. Jones (a 
deputy sheriff). Q. John I. Jones? A. Yes sir, 
I am not sure whether that was the first time or 
not. Q. Is that the time you whipped him? A. 
Yes sir. Q. The first time you whipped him in front 
of John I. Jones. A. Yes sir. (Tr. 27). Q. What did 
you whip him with? A. A piece of strap they swing 
bunks with, it was just a common hame string. I 
think I whipped him, I had hold of the buckle, 1 
think. (Tr. 28). Q. You did that because he didn’t 
talk to suit you? A. I don’t—  Q. He was in your cus­
tody at that time, a jailer? A. Yes sir. Q. Was any­
body in there except this little negro? A. No sir, I 
don’t think so. Q. The first time you brought him out 
to talk to him about the case was the time you whip­
ped him? (Tr. 28). A. I will say this, he had 
already made the confession. Q. I am not talking 
about that. A. Come on with it. So it is clearly 
and plainly seen the distinguished sheriff with his 
proud strut of a turky gobbler and vitriolic venom 
spleen becomes highly insulted that an attorney 
who was endeavoring to solicit from him the facts 
and his highness is so much insulted that he hollers 
at the attorney, “ COME ON WITH IT.” Does he 
mean something is under cover which he does not 
wish to disclose or was he trying to deter the court? 
What interrogatory had been propounded to him

— 111—



which was illegal or unbecoming? It is again seen 
how defective his memory but when one word is 
spoken by either boy he can repeat it as though 
he were a poll parrot. The same is true of Mr. 
Todhunter (273-274) who does not nor cannot tell 
the court what he said nor did to another person nor 
what another person did or said to him and who 
remembers and repeats this one thing and nothing 
more. Campbell and Todhunter testified that the 
confessions were free and voluntary but these are 
questions for the jury. They should have been free 
and unbaised and told what they said and did and 
what others said and did in the presence or hearing 
to these boys and let the jury conclude whether the 
confessions were free and voluntary. For them to 
say the confessions were free and voluntary is a 
conclusion of law and based upon their own 
judgment.

This is the same Mr. Campbell who upon his 
return from Hot Springs, entered the ante-room to 
jail which is an annex to Hotel De La Campbella 
and catapulted himself into the conversation be­
tween Jones and the Bell boy and Swain boy and 
the first words from his mouth were “ Where is the 
Money.” To this point the word money had not 
been mentioned by a human being. Why ask about 
“ The money.” Neither Jones, nor the Bell boy nor 
the Swain boy had mentioned “ Money.”  Joe

— 112—



Campbell, the son, and Othello McDougal had re­
tired at the time he entered or prior. He does not 
claim the article in newspaper purchased and read 
by him on train mentioned “ Money” nor does he 
claim he conversed with or talked to anyone on 
streets of Forrest City or on train prior to going to 
jail so this was unquestionably and unhesitatingly 
the person who injected the thought and the place 
where the words “ Money and Robbery”  came into 
this case. This is the time and place he slapped 
the Swain boy fore and aft and gave him a “ Gentle 
brushing” with a leather hame string.

If he neither wanted to hurt nor scare the 
Swain boy why was he slapping him fore and aft 
and making him lie on jail concrete floor while he 
was “ Brushing him with a leather strap three feet 
long with buckle on end.” A confession forced out 
of him by a strap or slaps or scared out through 
fear certainly would not be “ Free and voluntary.”

He does not deny that he told the Swain boy 
upon receipt of wire at Lonoke that it read “ Robert 
Bell and Grady Swain the probable murderers 
bring them on and let’s lynch them” and “ When 
we got there Mr. Campbell said if he had taken 
me over there they would have killed me as sure 
as two and two is four” (Tr. 359) nor “ They took 
me back the next day and I come out of jail crying 
and told Mr. Joe I didn’t know nothing about the

— 113



money (Tr. 306) nor that“  I heard him tell him 
(Todhunter) to give him a little tanning,” (Tr. 368), 
nor “They whipped him until he couldn’t cry,” nor 
“ He (Todhunter) said come here and get on the 
nigger’s head and hold him,”  nor “ He come in and 
asked me did I know anything about it and I told 
him ‘No sir’ and Mr. John I. Jones took me back in 
his kitchen and they called this boy (Bell) and 
asked this boy did he know anything about it and 
he said ‘No Sir.’ Then he said ‘That nigger didn’t 
know anything about it’ and he called me back and 
asked me did I and I told him ‘No Sir’ and he told 
Mr. Charlie Henry (a prisoner) to hand him the 
strop out.”  (Tr. 377), nor, “ You hand this old 
dollar getter back when you get through,”  (Tr. 
377), nor, “ I had seen after he whipped me, I was 
out in the Walls, yes sir, he whipped more men 
than a little,”  nor, “He carried me to Brinkley,” nor 
“ He whipped me the first time and he asked me 
didn’t I see the nigger drown the white boy. That 
was the first time. He carried me to Brinkley and 
brought me back and asked me didn’t I help him 
and they whipped me and made me say I helped 
him,” (Tr. 380), nor “And carried me in the office 
and questioned me and a man says ‘Let’s lynch him 
right now, get me a rope,’ ” nor “ They wrote the 
first statement and tore it up and then they come 
back and whipped Robert and wrote them (confes­
sions) (Tr. 361), nor “ They whipped Robert one

— 114—



Sunday, it was about three weeks before them” 
(second confession) (Tr. 362), nor “ The lawyer 
wasn’t there at that time,”  (Tr. 363), nor “ Mr. 
Todhunter, Mr. Campbell and several other more 
men” (Tr. 363), nor “ The tall man told me if I 
didn’t tell the truth they were going to kill me, he 
said, ‘We don’t want you in jail bleeding,’ ”  nor 
“ He would put his foot on me and give me a shake 
and then pop it to me”  (Tr. 395), nor “ He whipped 
me the first time until he got tired and then he 
rested and whipped me again” (Tr. 396), nor, 
“ I had on ‘Not anything but a shirt and a pair of 
pants,”  (Tr. 397), nor, “ I laid down on the floor 
and he whipped me once and he stopped and rest­
ed a little bit, he questioned me around there and 
I said ‘No sir, I didn’t know anything about it, I 
didn’t do it.’ He got me down again and whipped 
me that time and I thought I would own up to it 
because I thought he was going to kill me that time 
that I said ‘I didn’t do it,’ he called Grady Swain 
up there and he set down on my head and held m e;” 
(Tr. 399), nor, “ I thought if I didn’t tell it they 
would kill me,” (Tr. 403) ; Nor, “ Captain Todhun­
ter was sitting there in the corner, right there, and 
I didn t know whether he had the strap or not.” 
(Tr. 415). (Written confessions). Nor “ If they catch 
Elbert Thomas they will kill him in a minute” (Tr. 
311), nor “ Deputy Sheriff Ed Clinton told me ‘If

— 115



I didn’t tell the truth he would kill me if I knowed 
about it.’ ”  (Tr. 353).

While Mr. Campbell claims he was whipping, 
quizzing and prizing the Swain boy trying to make 
him tell about money, Mr. John I. Jones, his deputy 
sheriff, testified at (Tr. 201), “ I don’t believe the 
money was mentioned at that time, I don’t think 
we knew anyhing about the money at that time,” 
so Mr. Jones or Mr. Campbell one is in error. It 
is admitted by Mr. Jones and not denied by Mr. 
Campbell that Mr. Campbell was mad and whip­
ped the boy while in that frame of mind because 
the little boy did not answer as he thought he should 
and that if a little nigger does not answer a white 
man like the white man wants him to answer, his 
answer is incorrect and the boy is impudent. If 
we concede the Swain boy made the statements to 
Mr. Jones or Mr. Campbell or to both, “ What they 
might do with him if they were to find Elbert 
Thomas dead” and “ That he and Elbert Thomas 
drowned the McCullom boy,” and “ He was stand­
ing on the bridge and saw the negro, Elbert 
Thomas, do the killing”  and “ He told a half dozen 
yarns about Elbert Thomas” followed by: Q. The 
little negro was scared. A. I don’t think he was 
much scared. (Tr. 310).

It does not take a very vivid imagination for 
us who so well know the peculair characteristics of

— 116—



little colored boys when in jail or closeted in a 
closed room and in hand of stalwart peace officers, 
in the night time, away from mother, father, friends, 
neighbors, abandoned, all alone and scared and 
who had for the first time been arrested and very 
probably the first night from home, having been 
brought from the scene of the accident, hearing 
lynchings and burnings discussed, ropes displayed, 
whipped, slapped and “ We don’t want you in jail 
bleeding” and having not only hidden but open 
and visible natural fear of darkness, jails, court­
houses and antipathy for peace officers, lynching 
parties, rope brigades, talking of murdering, fires 
built, talking of burning and lynching Thomas 
should he be apprehended alive, these boys will 
say yes if you want yes or no if you wish no, they 
will admit anthing you wish them to admit or deny 
anything you desire them to deny, in fact irrespon­
sible and unaccountable for their answers or con­
duct. We have a fair illustration for these little 
boys as Mr. Jones says was not much scared and had 
told a half dozen different yarns. He told the court 
three of the yarns yet not of the remaining three.

And Mr. Todhunter, the warden, another law 
violator, another law enforcer, the third degree 
corkscrewer, the sweater, the 200-pound active, 
stout, healthy, middle-aged scorpion raw hide leath­
er strap wielder, the bullwhip pitcher, the hour-at-a-

— 117—



time quizzer, twister and boll weeviler, who brag- 
gadocially admitted had incarcerated and continu­
ously kept the Bell boy in a separate and lonely 
dungeon and who on two and probably three oc­
casions unmercifully and inhumanly whipped and 
beat him claiming that he was mean, dirty, saucy, 
however you may search the entire record given by 
him from inception to conclusion and you will not 
find one word said nor one act done by him which 
shows or even smacks of meanness, badness, or 
sauciness. How could he be mean or saucy when 
confined in a dark and bleak cell by himself? What 
word has he uttered or act done disclosing he was 
either saucy or mean? None. Again we ask how 
was it possible for him to be mean when in a dun­
geon by himself. He was not permitted to be out 
on the campus in walls but kept for some reason 
known only to the warden and God in this dungeon 
in solitary confinement. The warden has not in­
formed us of even one act he did to show he was 
mean. To whom was he mean or saucy and how 
did he secure that opportunity? Was he saucy to 
the warden, he does not say so. He had no guards, 
no one was permitted to talk to him nor did they 
have an opportunity as he was alone in his lonely 
cell. The distinguished warden says he was dirty. 
How could he be clean when he had no underwear 
to change? He frankly and jubilantly confessed he

— 118—



on two and probably three occasions unmercifully 
and without conscience made this motherless and 
helpless, benighted and friendless boy lay down on 
concrete floor in the stockade face downward and 
beat him with the regulation strap four and a half 
feet long by four inches wide as though he were 
a mangy mongrel, street cur dog and on one of 
these occasions forced the Swain boy to sit astride 
his head and hold him while applying the scorpion 
lash to his naked back, raising whelps on his head 
as large as a hen egg. This is not nor can it be 
denied. For what purpose and why? First he 
answers he was saucy, dirty and mean, then he 
shifts and says he was such an inveterate liar. To 
whom did he lie or to whom could he lie, being 
confined alone in a lonely cell? No one to talk to, 
how could he lie? No one to lie to. Thirdly and 
lastly, he said he whipped him to and did force him 
to confess where money was. He testified several 
times both in direct and cross examinations confes­
sions were free and voluntary yet he says on page 
220 “Because I had talked to him and just kept 
on talking to him until he finally told me, little by 
little, until he finally told all of it” and again on page 
277 of transcript, “ Well, I don’t think that I could 
say that Bell ever made a free and voluntary con­
fession. I got a confession out of him; it was by 
piece meal, it never was free, he told it without any

119



threats. There never was anything voluntarily 
come from this big negro.” On page 283 of trans­
script this question was propounded to him:

Q. Did you hit this boy pretty hard?

A. The black one, I did (Bell).

He says further that the Bell boy was a desper­
ate and bad nigger. (Tr. 221). What had he done, 
said or how had he acted disclosing he was des­
perate or bad? If we concede, which we do not, 
he was dirty, prevaricated, unclean and saucy and 
these are the only things about which he complains 
we most positively would not consider anyone of 
these faults or all combined to be sufficient to con­
stitute him a desperate or bad nigger. What had 
he done, said, or how had he acted, to or towards 
Mr. Todhunter or anyone in and around the walls 
portraying that he was either a desperate or bad 
nigger? How could a boy who was incarcerated in 
a small dungeon alone be mean, desperate or bad? 
What did he do showing he was either desperate 
or bad? The most distinguished gentlemen did not 
say directly or inferentially. Did he offer to 
escape? No. Did he offer resistance to anyone? 
No. Was he insubordinate? No. Did he decline 
to do anything he was told to do? No. Did he 
offer to strike the warden or anyone connected with 
or in the Penitentiary Walls? No. Put your finger 
on one jot or tittle of evidence from Alpha to Omega

— 120—



by any witness disclosed by the whole record that 
he was a bad, mean, desperate negro. Show one 
single act revealing that he was bad or desperate. 
When or where was he either bad or desperate? 
To whom was he bad or desperate? The witness 
complacently testified he was bad and desperate 
yet does not say where, when nor give one instance 
of either badness or desperateness. Why did he 
not tell what was done, if anything, by the boy 
showing he was a bad and desperate nigger?

He was wearing the same under and outer 
clothing a few days ago he wore when placed in 
walls and when being tried in Forrest City, the same 
old ragged pants, the same dirty socks, the same 
turtle colored shell shoes and the same slouchy and 
ragged coat, the same hornet nest shaped 
hat. The distinguished, most potent, grave and 
reverened warden did not say he had given him 
either under or outer clothes, nor that the state of 
Arkansas nor the much-ado-about-nothing sheriff, 
Campbell, so it is absurd to say he should be 
clean. Oh, he says he would not repair his bunk 
or keep his cell floor clean but we ask him how 
he could remove the dirt from the floor without a 
broom which he w-as not permitted to have? How 
was he to wash his and bed clothes when he had 
no water?

— 121



Q. You just simply whipped him because he 
lied to you about the money?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You were not whipping him for anything 
except he lied to you?

A. And insubordination.

Q. How was he insubordinate?

A. He was saucy and impudent, and wouldn’t 
keep himself clean.

Q. What did he say that was saucy? (Tr. 223).

A. I couldn’t tell you, when a man has a hun­
dred or hundred and fifty men there he couldn’t 
tell everything each one did.

Q. How often did you talk to him?

A. Probably every day and probably every two 
or three days. Sometimes when I would have 
time I went in there and talked to that negro a 
solid hour, just him and me.

Q. This isn’t the first time you have gotten 
confessions out of prisoners?

A. I expect I have gotten a thousand. (Tr. 
224).

Second Act of the Drama is concluded, curtain 
of campus, stockade and dungeon fall; scene shifts

— 1 2 2 —



to the Warden’s office with curtains drawn down, 
doors barred, lights on and fires burning, which is 
adjacent to and through which entrance is made 
into the campus inside walls.

The actors: First, Mr. S. L. Todhunter, a
strong, robust, active and middle-aged man of 200 
pounds with upwards of 30 years of actual experi­
ence in securing and pulling more than 1000 confes­
sions out of hundreds of innocent, benighted, help­
less and frightened human beings, testifying there­
to against them in courts and takes his seat by and 
near his desk within handy reach of his old trusted, 
faithful and active number one cow hide scorpion 
leather whip; Second, Mr. B. McCullom, a man of 
wealth, influence, activity, good judge of fires and 
strong ropes, and he seats himself; Third, Mr. Feitz, 
a non-resident, claimed to be court reporter and 
extraordinary sleight-of-hand typewriter manipula­
tor who moves his spotless coat, elevates his white 
cuffs, hikes up his pressed trousers to avoid disloca­
tion of the permanent trouser wave creases and dis­
closes his red, white and blue criss-cross socks, ad­
justs his hair by having equal numbers on each 
side to eliminate extra weight on either side, ex­
tracts from his pocket on side next to his heart 
an old Virginia Cheroot and adjusts one end with 
Chesterfield grace, ease and precision between his 
lip-stick lips, ignites a borrowed match with fric-

— 123—



tion on varnished desk, applies to opposite end, 
takes a placid puff and watches with amusement 
beautiful ringlets rise and fall and he takes his seat; 
Fourthly, Reverend Caiaphas Sun Set Hargraves 
with his Talmud beneath his arm next to his heart 
burning with mercy, hope and charity and he takes 
his seat; Fifth, Grady Swain, a little helpless, be­
nighted, abused and dependent colored boy, sep- 
arted from, and in absence of, his mother, father, 
friends, apparently deserted and forsaken who had 
never seen anything nor been anywhere except in 
corn fields and cotton patches and he takes his seat; 
Sixth and last, Robert Bell, another poor, scared, 
kicked, cuffed and beaten as though he were a 
mere deserted street cur dog, motherless, friend­
less and inexperienced country boy. No seat hav­
ing been provided for him he stands in corner and 
shivers with fright and pain, occasionally when un­
seen rubs the recently made whelps on his back and 
knots on his head as large as hen eggs.

Caiaphas Sun Set Hargraves arises, profoundly 
strokes his chin with hand closest to his heart, bows 
and solemnly addresses the August conclave thus- 
ly; “ My true and excellent friends, I have Occi­
dental strength and Oriental magic, have met and 
wrought in the pleasures of magic; my performance 
today is black art, it is the devil, it is magic, you 
cannot cut that which has no resistance, I first

— 1 2 4 —



slept on eider-down pillows, I use the Damascus- 
tempered steel, the process of evolution stopped 
when I was born, I am perfect physically and ment­
ally, when I travel south of the Equator my shadow 
is cast towards the north but when I return north 
my shadow leans towards the south, I am a learned 
and experienced non-resident paid barrister, this 
is a cold, bleak and stormy night my bones rattle, 
my teeth chatter with cold, my scribe, office as­
sociate, close personal friend who does my bidding 
and I have made a long, long, cold and tiresome 
drive covering 150 miles in my Tin Lizzie partly 
owned personally by me and partly by a foreign 
finance corporation. We passed the home of Robert 
Swain and Mary Swain, father and mother of this 
little 14-year-old “ nigger” boy, saw them in field 
picking cotton, and the home of John Bell and Mary 
Bell, the father and step-mother of this “nigger,” 
Robert Bell, they too, were picking cotton, but on 
account of valuable time and not believing it best 
nor conductive to our objective we did not stop for 
them that they might be with these little “ niggers” 
and hear their “Free and Voluntary Confessions.”

We halted at Greasy Corner, saw where fires 
had been built and hemp hanging from oak limbs. 
Our friend, Mr. McCullom, entered our superb car at 
aforesaid corner whom we have petted, wooed, 
held closely to our hearts and fingered with his 
“ In God we trust.”

— 125—



On our way we fought fourwindmills, met and 
slew three hydra-headed monsters, caught and as­
sassinated six she-wolves, tamed seven African he- 
lions, stampeded four herds of Texas bulls, walked 
on the water without wetting our shoes, computed 
the diameter, circumference and number of cubic 
feet in the tower of Babel, wooed, won and captur­
ed the dove from Noah’s Ark, proved an error in 
the law of nature that the sum of the whole is 
greater than the whole, all of which has been a 
pleasure to us but something is out of harmony, 
there is an empty void which can only be filled by 
the presence of our good, true and faithful friends, 
J. M. Campbell with his 1500 box car letter circulars 
offering $500.00 for the capture of the one- 
eyed dead nigger, and John I. Jones who says the 
little Swain boy was not much scared on night he 
was whipped with hame string. All of these have 
been extraordinary pleasures, exhilerating our ap­
petites and creating in us a thirst for greater ven­
tures.

My true friend, Todhunter, you are a meritori­
ous man, equal or superior to the greatness of 
worthy Nero. Thus far you have done your work 
well, I commend you but sit close by and give 
special attention to the cow hide. My superb and 
worthy friend, McCullom, you are a sagacious man, 
have wrought well and accumulated sufficiency to

— 126—



discharge the lien on my Tin Lizzie; Dearest Feitz 
I heartly commend you. I long for our faithful, 
true and tried friends, Campbell and Jones, that 
they too could be in this sacred place and enjoy our 
pleasures in this little playlette.

My good friends when I speak, I speak the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 
My superlative Scribe, Feitz, you will do today as 
heretofore as I instruct you upon this instrument. 
“Nigger” Grady Swain and “ Nigger” Robert Bell 
stand, one at a time, pronounce your names and re­
peat 'iSsfea- after me.

“ I asked Elbert for his pocket book. He hand­
ed me his pocketbook and I handed it back to 
Grady Swain and Grady Swain he takes five 
dollars out of it, then Elbert Thomas axes 
me to give him his pocketbook back and 
I told Grady to hand it to me, and he hand­
ed it to me and I give it to Elbert, and he puts 
it in his pocket, I not noticing which one. Then I 
tilts the boat one sided, and pushes Elbert out, 
while Grady holds Julius in the boat. After I tilts 
the boat over and pushes Elbert out, I takes hold of 
Julius and Grady takes the money out of Julius 
pocket. It was one five dollar bill and a ten dollar 
bill and a “ V ” nickle off of Julius, it was a burnt 
nickle.” (Tr. 235).

— 127—



“ I make this statement freely and voluntarily, 
without any threat of violence, or promise of im­
munity or reward because it is the truth, and after 
I was advised that it may be used in evidence in 
court, and make it in the presence of Mr. Todhunter, 
Mr. B. McCullom, Mr. S. S. Hargraves and Marcus 
Feitz.”  (Tr. 238).

And “Robert Bell got in the middle of the boat 
next to Elbert Thomas and asked him let him see 
his pocket book and took five dollars out of the 
pocketbook and I was at the end of the boat after 
he pushed Elbert Thomas over. Then he grabbed 
Julius and held him, and I took the money 
off of Julius, fifteen dollars and a nickle, one 
five-cents, and I shoved him in, and he told me 
to, and he took the money, and he said, ‘He was 
going to take it home with him and hide it down 
back of the house,’ and he said, ‘When it settles 
down he were going to give me half of the money.’ 
He went to the store, bought one big stick of candy, 
with the the nickle, and he came back and give 
me a piece, and he went back to the store, and I 
went home. That’s all.”

And “ I make this statement in the presence of 
Robert Bell, Mr. Todhunter, Mr. B. McCullom, Mr. 
S. S. Hargraves and Mr. Marcus Feitz, and I make 
it of my own free will, without any threats of viol­
ence, promise of reward, or remuneration, and I

— 128—



make said statement because they are the truth, 
and have been advised that they may be used in 
court as evidence.”

These confessions are what we would denomin­
ate abnormal monstrosities and unbelievable by a 
child of ten years of age even with mediocre intelli­
gence, in that a stout, active and athletic man of 
175 or 180 pounds, 19 years of age, would quietly, 
complacently and peacefully without rhyme or 
rythm take his pocketbook from his pocket, hand 
same to a boy he could have taken by the nap of his 
neck and seat of his pants and thrown 10 feet in 
the air, seen same opened, all of his earnings ex­
tracted, pocketbook closed, returned, received and 
quietly place same back in his pocket without doing 
even one thing or uttering a protest, chirping one 
word, offering an objection, absolutely doing or 
saying neither yea nor nay and in the sight, presence 
and reach of his boon companion who neither says 
one word nor does one thing. Again, when the boat is 
tilted why did not Julius, Robert and Grady pre­
cipitate into the water as well as Elbert; was Julius 
hypnotized and transfixed, was his tongue para­
lyzed? Again, “ I takes hold of Julius and Grady 
takes the money out of his pocket,”  When Julius, 
who was young, athletic and “ Mighty strong for 
his age”  weighing 75 or 80 pounds, all of this scuf­
fling and wrestling of three boys in water six inches

— 1 2 9 —



deep in only a fourteen foot boat no pockets torn or 
ripped nor turned wholly or partly inside out, no 
clothes torn, no clothes ripped, no marks nor 
scratches nor abrasions on any of bodies or faces, 
no boat capsized, no clothes wet, no shoes wet, no 
cries, no alarm, no hollering, no call for help and 
all within sight and talking distance of the store, 
father, mother, uncle and customers entering and 
leaving, about the same distance of a garage, near 
a school house and within 100 or 125 steps of a 
public highway over which hundreds of people daily 
pass and repass. This is equal to or surpasses a 
story of an Arabian Knight and manufactured by 
the warped and fertile mind of a person with a heart 
of a lizard and maw of a sponge taking a great in­
terest in this case to extract McCullom’s cash.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BELL, TAKEN AT 
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, JANUARY 29TH, 
1928, AT 5:80 P. M.

QUESTIONED BY MR. HARGRAVES:

(1) Q. Robert was you at Mr. McCullom’s 
store the evening that Elbert Thomas and Julius Mc- 
Cullom got drowned?

A. Yes sir.

(2) Q. How long was this before the boys 
were drowned?

A. About a half hour.

— 130—



(3) Q. Tell me who was up at the store 
when you left to go down to the bayou.

A. Tom and Willie Thomas besides this boy 
Grady Swain, he was up there too. Julius was at 
the store too, but Elbert was down to his brother’s 
home, and when he came back I was already down 
to the boat. Mrs. McC’ullom, Julius’ mother, and 
Mr. Ransom McCullom was there at the store 
working.

(4) Q. Where was Mr. B. McCullom?

A. He was sick; he was back in the room 
there, sick.

(5) Q. Did you know Elbert Thomas and 
Julius were going down to the bayou to bait the 
trap?

A. I knowed Elbert was.

(6) Q. Did you know then Elbert had some 
money?

A. Yes sir, I knowed he had some, but didn’t 
know how much he had.

(7) Q. Did you know then that Julius had 
a roll of money on him?

A. I knowed he had some money, but didn’t 
know how much he had.

— 131—



(8) Q. Why were you down at the boat 
waiting for them to come down there?

A. I was down there looking at the water, 
because the next day I was going fishing if the wa­
ter wasn’t too high.

(9) Q. Was that the first time you thought 
about drowning these boys for their money?

A. Yes sir; the first time.

(10) Q. Who pushed Elbert Thomas in the 
bayou?

A. I did.

(11) Q. Did he have any idea you were go­
ing to push him in before you did it?

A. No sir; I don’t think he knowed it.

(12) Q. Had you already gotten his money?

A. No sir.

(13) Q. When did you get his money?

A. I asked Elbert for his pocketbook. He 
handed me his pocket book and I handed it to Grady 
Swain, and Grady Swain he taken five dollars out 
of it, then Elbert Thomas he axed me was I going 
to give him the pocket book back, and I told Grady 
to hand it to me, and he handed it back to me, and 
I give it back to Elbert, and he put it in one pocket,

— 132—



I not noticing which one. Then I tilts the boat one 
sided, and pushes Elbert Thomas out, while Grady 
holds Julius in the boat. After I tilts the boat over 
and pushes Elbert out, I takes hold of Julius and 
Grady takes the money out of Julius’ pocket. It 
was one five dollar bill and a ten dollar bill and a 

V nickel off of Julius, It was a burnt nickle.

(14) Q. What happened after you took the 
money off of Julius?

A. Then us drowned him.

(15) Q. How did you do that?

A. I holds him while Grady puts water in his 
face to keep him from hollering.

(16) Q. Then did you throw him in the 
bayou?

A. Yes sir, we pitched him in the bayou and 
come on to the bank.

(17) Q. Who pushed him in the bayou?

A. He did; I holds him and he strangles him, 
and when I turns him loose he just pushes him right 
off into the bayou.

(18) Q. What become of his boots?

A. Grady he pushes one of them off and I 
pushed the other one off.

— 133—



(19) Q. Did you notice how his socks were 
fastened when you took his boots off?

A. Yes sir; I noticed how his socks were 
fastened. One of them was fastened to his union 
suit with a safety pin, and the other one was fas­
tened with a supporter.

(20) Q. What kind of boots did he have on?

A. Gum boots; they was rubber boots.

(21) Q. Where did you go then after you 
landed the boat?

A. I went up to the store and got a stick of 
candy. I started back to the bayou, and started 
back the way I come and Grady he was up there by 
Mr. Mack’s old barn, and he whistled to let me 
know where he was. I goes there; I breaks this 
candy half in two, and then I given him half of it. 
He told me he was going to keep the money, be­
cause if he give it to me he was scared I would run 
off with it, and he wouldn’t get none of it, so that 
was all we had to say that day. I can’t give no 
account of nothing but that “ V” nickle that is all 
I can give any account of.

(22) Q. Then where did you go after that?

A. I went from Mr. Mack’s store down to his 
house. I started to churn but the milk was cold 
and the butter wouldn’t come, then she tells me to

— 134



get on my horse, and go down to the store and get 
a gallon of coal oil; I goes down there to get the 
coal oil, and comes back up to the house and takes 
Holbert back up there with me, and then I come 
back to the store and went down to Willie Thomas’ 
house, and then goes back to the store, and then 
gets on my horse, and goes as far as Mr. Black’s 
cook’s house. Willie Thomas went that far with 
me, and I saw Ophelia and L. D. This was be­
fore they found Julius. I left there and come 
back to the store and got my horse and went 
down to A. P. Campbell’s house and stayed all 
night. I turned my horse loose. I leaves my horse 
down there and goes home next morning. After 
going home I asked papa what time it was. He told 
me it was 7 :30. About the time I walked back 
over to Mr. W. S. Thomas’ store it was about 8:30. 
I goes on to A. P. Campbell’s and gets my horse, 
and then comes back and gets the mail and goes 
to Chatfield, and I went there and put the mail 
in the post office, and was standing up there talk­
ing to Mr. Ray, and Mr. Hulen walked up there and 
arrested me.

(23) Q. Had you told anybody up until that 
time you had drowned Elbert and Julius?

A. No sir; nobody but A. P. Campbell.

(24) Q. When did you tell A. P. Campbell 
about it?

— 1 3 5 —



A. Right after they had found Julius, and A. 
P. said we had done a mighty bad thing.

(25) Q. Did you tell A. P. how much money 
you got?

A. No sir; I never told him.

(26) Q. Did you tell A. P. Campbell why 
you drowned them?

A. No sir; I just told him Grady and I drown­
ed Julius and Elbert; that is all I told him.

(27) Q. Did you caution him not to tell 
anybody else about it?

A. No sir; he just said we had done a mighty 
bad thing; that is all he said.

(28) Q. How old is A. P. ?

A. I don’t know, how old he is.

I make this statement, freely and voluntarily, 
without any threat of violence, or promise of im­
munity or reward, because it is the truth, and after 
I was advised that it may be used in evidence in 
court, and I make it in the presence of Mr. Todhun- 
ter, Mr. B. McCullom, Mr. S. S. Hargraves and 
Marcus Feitz.

His
Robert X Bell 

Mark.
W itn ess;
S. L. Todhunter.
Marcus Feitz.” (Tr. 234).

— 136



STATEMENT OF GRADY SWAIN TAKEN AT 
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, JANUARY 29TH, 
4:50 P. M., 1928.

QUESTIONED BY MR. HARGRAVES.

(1) Q. Grady did you live down there close 
to Mr. McCullom?

A. Yes sir.

(2) Q. Did you know Mr. McCullom’s son, 
Julius?

A. Yes sir.

(3) Q. Did you know the colored boy by 
the name of Elbert Thomas?

A. Yes sir.

(4) Q. When was the last time you saw 
Elbert Thomas with Mr. McCullom’s boy, Julius?

A. That evening.

(5) Q. What evening was that?

A. The evening the two boys was drowned.

(6) Q. Do you know why they were drown­
ed, how come them to be drowned?

A. Yes sir.

(7) Q. Did you see them drowned?

A. Yes sir.

— 137—



(8) Q. Grady begin right there and tell us 
when the scheme was made, when you agreed to 
drown them and how they were drowned, and the 
last thing that was seen or done with them, just be­
gin there and tell it in your own way.

A. Yes sir, Robert Bell began to step up to 
me on the porch. I was sitting on a soda water 
box. He says, Mr. McCullom’s little boy had a roll 
of money on him, he were going to kill him and 
take it and get it, and Elbert Thomas, he told me 
that he had some money on him too; he didn’t know 
how much it was on either one of them, but he were 
going to kill him and take it from him. He didn’t 
say how. Robert Bell, he was already down there 
at the boat. I left the store. I come on with Elbert 
Thomas and Julius McC'ullom. Robert Bell got in 
the middle of the boat next to Elbert Thomas and 
asked him to let him see his pocketbook and took 
five dollars out of the pocketbook and I was at the 
end of the boat after he pushed Elbert Thomas over. 
Then I grabbed Julius and held him, and took the 
money off of Julius, fifteen dollars and a nickle, 
one five-cents, and I shoved him in, and he told me 
to, and he took the money, and he said, he was going 
to take it home with him and hide it down back of 
his house, and he said when it settled down he were 
going to give me half of the money. He went to 
the store, bought one big stick of candy, with the

— 138—



nickle, and he came back and give me a piece, and 
he went back to the store, and went home. That’s 
all.

(9) Q. You said he pushed Elbert Thomas 
in, do you mean Robert Bell pushed Elbert Thomas 
in the lake or in the bayou?

A. Yes sir.

(10) Q. Then who held Mr. McCullom’s boy 
under?

A. He did. He told me to shove him out and 
I did shove him out.

(11) Q. Did he come up after you pushed 
him in the water?

A. Yes sir, once.

(12) Q. Did Thomas cry out or holler, did 
he know what was going to happen to him, until 
after he was pushed in the water?

A. No.

(13) Q. Who took Julius McCullom’s boots
off?

A. I took off one and Robert the other.

(14) Q. Were they laced up?

A. No sir, gum boots.

— 139—



(15) Q. Now, what did you do with the 
boots after you took them off?

A. Robert Bell pitched them in the water.

(16) Q. Did you take his boots off before 
you pushed Julius in?

A. Yes sir.

(17) Q. Did you notice how his socks were 
fastened or what kind of socks he had on?

A. Yes sir; he had on a sock with a safety 
pin in it and a sock with a garter to it?

(18) Q. Do you mean he had one garter on 
one sock and a safety pin holding the other sock up?

A. Yes sir.

(19) Q. Did you take his socks off?

A. No.

(20) Q. Did you notice about a hole in one 
of his boots?

A. I know there was a hole in one of them; 
I think it was his left one.

(21) Q. What part of the boot had a hole 
in it?

A. Foot part (indicating).

— 140—



(22) Q. Inside part of the foot of the boot?

A. Yes sir. At the time Robert Bell mentioned 
the fact to me that Julius and Elbert had some 
money big Henry Flowers and Bob Flowers were 
going home. Bob Flowers had a package under 
his arm, then Robert Bell left and went around the 
garden towards Chatfield and I went down with 
Elbert and Julius and when we got there Robert 
Bell was already at the boat sitting on the end of 
the boat. The nickle was the only coin we got 
from them and this was spent for the stick of candy 
Bell got at Mr. McCullom’s store; it was a black 
nickle. I went home and didn’t see Robert any 
more until he was arrested at Chatfield.

I make this statement in the presence of 
Robert Bell, Mr. Todhunter, Mr. B. McCullom, Mr. 
S. S. Hargraves, and Mr. Marcus Feitz, and I make 
it of my own free will, without any threats of viol­
ence, promise of reward, or remuneration, and I 
make said statement because they are the truth, 
and I have been advised that they may be used in 
court as evidence.

Grady Swain.

Witnesses.

S. L. Todhunter,

Marcus Feitz.”  (Tr. 240).

— 141—



We will make another examination of these 
unfortunate occurrences.

Q. Where were you when you signed this?

A. In the office.

Q. Who told you to come in there?

A. Mr. Todhunter come out and got me him­
self. He called me and told me to come in there 
and say the same words he said, what he told me 
to say.

Q. When had you confessed to Mr. Todhun­
ter?

A. After he beat me like a dog.

Q. How long was that before this was signed?

A. Well, they wrote the first statement and 
tore it up then they come back and whipped Robert 
and wrote them. (Tr. 361).

Again; “ Yes sir, after he whipped Robert one 
time, they said the statement wasn’t good and they 
wrote a new one; that is the second statement.”

Q. Who wrote the first one?

A. Mr. Ray Harrison. (Tr. 362). (He is a 
life time convict).

To whom does this little child refer when he 
says, “ They wrote the first one and tore it up” and

— 1 4 2 —



“ Then THEY come back and whipped Robert and 
wrote this.”

Further on in his evidence he says, “ The law­
yer (Mr. Hargraves) was not present when first 
statement was written.” (Tr. 363).

Did Mr. Campbell, Mr. Todhunter, Mr. Har­
rison, and Mr. McCullom constitute “ THEY” or were 
“ they” Mr. Harrison and one of two of the other 
three?

Thus we see the ghost of Mr. Campbell as the 
ghost of Banquo will not down.

And the same bellwether and coffin plate, 
smiling Campbell, the conservator of the peace, who 
did absolutely nothing, not one iota, to extinguish 
the fires, arrest one of the lynching brigade nor the 
rope phylax nor quell the disturbance in, and 
around Greasy Corner, who had slapped, strapped, 
whipped when at his convenience lying on jail con­
crete floor, quizzed, given the Swain boy the third 
degree in jail in Forrest City the night following 
his arrest in the sight, presence and hearing of the 
Bell boy and with whom the Swain boy stayed that 
night and the following forenoon and again on his 
return from Brinkley was the originator, instigator 
and procuror of the written confessions. Mr. Tod­
hunter says at 301 of transcript: “ Sheriff Campbell 
was over and told'me he said he (Hargraves) would

— 1 4 3 —



be over in a day or two he was in Memphis. He 
said Mr. Hargraves would come over and get them 
(written confessions). He came in a day or two” 
and the same witness testified at page 284 of 
transcript:

Q. How many times did you talk to the little 
Swain boy before he confessed to you?

A. I don’t know whether he confessed to me 
the first time I talked to him or not. I don’t know 
whether I talked to the negro the first day or not. 
I don’t think I did. I was busy.

Q. Did you talk to him before Sheriff Camp­
bell came up there the second time?

A. Yes sir, I am satisfied I did, I called 
Sheriff Campbell and told him what the negro told 
me and it might have been the sheriff made the trip 
up here before the negro told me very much.

So we see this little 14-year-old boy was quiz­
zed the first time by the warden and who no doubt 
denied all guilt, was in the absence of his father, 
mother, friends, all alone in a strange place and 
surrounded by strange people all desperate crim­
inals except Mr. Todhunter and Mr. Campbell, con­
fined in the walls by this law enforcer, Mr. Camp­
bell, the slapper, strapper, whipper, quizzer, third 
degreer and the warden, another law enforcer,

■144—



third degree corkscrewer, the scorpion cow hide 
leather strap weilder and boll weeviler, and who 
had witnessed whippings given to the Bell boy and 
many other unfortunate and helpless human be­
ings in the walls. In this condition this boy would 
have confessed or said anything (either wanted him 
to say or confess).

Beginning at the inception of the confession of 
the Bell boy and numbering interrogatories pro­
pounded in the night time by the attorney from 
one to twenty-eight, inclusive, it will be noted 
numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 
18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 or 20 of the 28 are twisters, 
gougers and pullers, suggesting answers desired and 
virtually answering themselves. Practically every 
question is based upon assumed facts which would 
be neither tolerated nor permitted in the most 
ignorant justice of the peace court. The very first 
question propounded to this boy was based upon 
the assumption that Julius McCullom and Elbert 
Thomas “ Got drowned;”  the second assumed they 
were drowned “ About a half hour” after he was 
at the store. The third assumes that “ When you 
left (store) to go down to the bayou.” The fifth 
assumes Julius and Elbert were going to the bayou 
to bait a strap and that the trap was at the bayou. 
The sixth that “Elbert had some money.” The 
seventh that he knew Julius “ Had a roll of money

— 145-



on him.” The eighth that he was “ Down at the 
water waiting for them to come down there.”  
The ninth “Was that the first time you thought 
about drowning these boys for their money.” 
Tenth that “Elbert was pushed in the bayou.” 
Eleventh assumes “ Elbert had no idea Robert was 
going to push him in the bayou.”  Twelfth assumes, 
“ Robert had already gotten the money.”  The 
answer to the thirteenth interrogatory, “ When did 
you get the money?” “ I asked Elbert for his pocket- 
book. He handed me his pocketbook and I handed 
it to Grady Swain and Grady Swain he taken five 
dollars out of it. Then Ellbert Thomas he axed me 
to give him the pocketbook back, and I told Grady to 
hand it to me, and he handed it back to me, and I 
give it back to Elbert, and he put it in one pocket, 
I not noticing which one, then I tilts the boat one­
sided and pushes Elbert Thomas out, while Grady 
holds Julius in the boat. After I tilts the boat and 
pushes Elbert out I takes hold of Julius and Grady 
takes the money out of Julius pocket. It was one 
five dollar bill and a ten dollar bill and a “ V” 
nickel off of Julius, it was a burnt nickel.”

An analysis of last answer will disclose that 
Elbert Thomas, a man in his 19th year, strong, ro­
bust, active, healthy and weighing 175 or 180 
pounds without rhyme, rythm or uttering one word 
of protest, asking one question or offering an ob-

— 146—



jection at the mere request of a boy who was 
younger, much smaller and greatly weaker took 
from his pocket his pocket book and money gave it 
to the Bell boy who in turn gave it to Grady Swain, 
another small and weak boy who in the presence 
of both Thomas and Julius opened the pocketbook, 
extracted five dollars therefrom, closed the pocket- 
book, returned it to the Bell boy who in turn re­
turned same to Thomas, during all of this time 
Thomas, Julius, Robert and Grady being in a boat 
and Thomas quietly, peacefully and without one 
word of objection, one word of protest, without 
anger, disturbance, resentment or interposing an 
iota put the pocketbook back into his pocket. No 
knife, no gun, no stick, no force, no outcry, no 
scuffling, no wrestling, all in the presence and 
reach of Julius who does or says absolutely nothing. 
Neither give an alarm, offer no resistance, make 
no effort to escape, nor offer the least resistance, 
no protest nor objections nor request or advice. 
Both stand meekly and submissively as Mary’s little 
lamb. When all of these wonderful, unheard of, un- 
believeable and unthinkable things are concluded 
within sight of, within speaking distance and prac­
tically within the presence of Julius’ mother, father, 
uncle, brothers and sisters, neighbors, friends, with­
in, in front of, around the store and passing 
up and down and to and fro over the 
public highway and being in and around a

— 1 4 7 —



garage, “ Then I tilts the boat one sided and 
pushes Elbert Thomas out whiles Grady holds 
Julius in the boat.” Then only three boys in the 
boat, Julius “ A mighty stout boy for his age” 
weighing 75 or 80 pounds, strong and healthy, 
Robert Bell and Grady Swain are left in the small 
boat. This “ Mighty strong for his age”  without 
resistance, or a request, or an entreaty, or a cry, 
or an alarm, or a scuffle, or tearing his clothes, or 
ripping his clothes, or pockets, in sight and hearing 
of his father, mother, uncle, neighbors and friends, 
submissively, peacefully and quietly permits himself 
to be searched, robbed and drowned by his four- 
year boon companion, associate, playmate, friend.

It is strange to us that Elbert Thomas who was 
much stronger, stouter, older and weighed 50 
pounds more than the Bell boy, in reach of Julius, 
would suffer himself to be robbed and drowned by 
the Bell boy in the presence of Julius yet neither he 
nor Julius said one word, uttered one protest, offer­
ed one objection, gave one outcry, cried or called 
for assistance and within sight of the father, moth­
er, uncle, brothers and sisters of Julius and cus­
tomers going in and coming out of the stqre, and 
also within 100 or 125 steps of the most public and 
traveled highway in Eastern Arkansas. Again how 
did these two boys drown Thomas weighing 175 or 
180 pounds and Julius weighing 75 or 80 pounds

— 1 4 8 —



without the small 14 foot boat being capsized, or 
either getting wet or their clothes or pockets torn 
or their clothes pockets ripped or pockets partly 
or wholly turned inside out. They were so money 
thirsty and so ravenous for money that they even 
removed and searched Julius’ boots, removed and 
searched his socks, pulled up and searched his 
trouser legs for money and could and did describe 
most minutely, and made a most scrutinuous and 
minute examination of his underclothes, so much 
so they could and did “ Freely and voluntarily” 
confess that one sock was fastened to his union 
suit with a safety pin and the other sock was fas­
tened to his union suit with a suspender, never­
theless Julius had on long pants. How did 
they know he had on a union suit? Why 
were they making the crucial and close investiga­
tion? What reason or motive prompted them with 
all of this painstaking, close and minute search and 
investigation for when the bodies were recovered 
both had money in their pockets? Thomas’ knife 
and other articles were in his pocket when his body 
was removed. The evidence does not disclose what 
was in Julius’ pockets when removed from Bayou, 
other than six cents in money.

Any man with the intelligence of an ordinary 
mediocre ten-year-old child would know these boys 
could not scuffle and wrestle in a 14-foot boat with-

— 149—



out turning it over or falling out on account of its 
rocking on the water but the “ Free and voluntary 
confessions”  say, “ Then he grabbed Julius and 
held him and I took the money.” (Tr. 241).

The same may be said about the “ Free and 
Voluntary Confessions” of Grady Swain as was 
said concerning the “Free and voluntary confession” 
of Robert Bell which was also taken in the night 
time. Practically every interrogatory is a gimlet 
puller, cork twister and gouger. To illustrate, take 
the 8th. Q. “ Grady begin right there and tell us 
when the scheme was made, when you agreed to 
drown them and how they were drowned, and the 
last that was seen or done with them?” So it is 
readily apparent the question is based upon the 
hypothesis, 1st. That there was a preconcocted 
scheme to drown Thomas and Julius. 2nd, Grady 
and Robert entered into an agreement to drown 
them. 3rd, That Grady knew the manner in which 
they were drowned, and 4th, That Grady knew the 
last that was seen or done with them.

The bull whip oral confessions of the Bell boy 
and the little Swain boy in Penitentiary Walls to 
Mr. Todhunter and the night in jail and on train 
oral confessions of the Swain boy after being slap­
ped and then made to lie on the concrete jail floor 
and whipped by Campbell with hame string 
to Mr. Campbell and the confession of the Bell boy

— 150—



to him sometime and somewhere, probably before 
and probably after the overawed and cowered 
night written confession in the ante-room to Peni­
tentiary Walls with curtains drawn down, doors 
barred, lights on and fires burning before, close to, 
and in the presense of Mr. Todhunter, Mr. Mc- 
Cullom, Mr. Feitz and Mr. Hargraves and the writ­
ten confessions of that August and memorable night 
are signet ring confessions; each and every one is 
absolutely and unquestionably the very rubber 
stamp of the other which is incredible to human 
instincts for no two, three or more men ever heard 
and was able to repeat all of the incidents told to 
them by any one or more men, one remembers a 
part and repeats that part, forgets a part and omits 
that part which he forgets. The same is true if 
two or more people hear a report or the facts in a 
case and are called as witnesses, no two of them 
can recall or relate the facts the same for one will 
remember some part of the report or a part of the 
facts, another will remember another part of the 
report or part of the facts and will so testify. The 
testimony will differ upon a great many circum­
stances such as memory, hearing, education, atten­
tion, power of discernment, etc. But in the instant 
case every witness details most minutely every in­
cident, every move, every word, every action of each 
of the defendants from inception to conclusion pre­
cisely as copies of signet ,ring. The confessions as

— 151



reported by Mr. Todhunter are precisely in every 
particular the same confessions reported by Mr. 
Campbell and the confessions reported by Mr. 
Campbell are precisely in every detail the same as 
those reported by Mr. Hargraves, hence it follows 
the confessions reported by Mr. Todhunter are the 
same in every particular as the confessions reported 
by Mr. Hargraves which forces us to believe they 
were machine or more properly speaking confessions 
agreed upon before hand by the witnesses. It would 
not have been possible for each of these witnesses 
to have heard the two boys relate facts then all to 
remember and repeat all of the facts the same. 
There would have been if the witnesses had been 
honest and sincere to themselves, a variance, but in 
this case each is nothing but the rubber stamp of 
the other. The reports of the trial of Christ by the 
apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are not 
the same in every detail which conclusively disclos­
es there was no prior understanding between them. 
Each gave an account of the trial as he saw and 
knew it; Matthew saw and heard some things 
Mark, Luke and John did not see nor hear so with 
the others, but in present case Mr. Todhunter, Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Hargraves saw, heard and re­
ported everything exactly alike which is strongly 
persuasive that an understanding was had prior to 
giving evidence before the jury. This may be the 
reason for Mr. Feitz at directions of Mr. Hargraves

— 152—



making so many copies of the written confessions, 
one for himself, one for Mr. Hargraves, one for Mr. 
Campbell, one for Mr. Jones, one for Mr. Todhun- 
ter and one for Mr. McCullom and one for A. P. 
Campbell, that each actor could memorize and re­
peat his part. Mr. Todhunter admits some parts 
of the statements of both defendants were very 
vague on his memory, so much so he was unable to 
repeat them in his part of the tragedy until he had 
refreshed his memory from written confessions. 
Mr. Campbell, the principal and leading actor, 
overdid his part in that he was so zealous and 
ardent to tell the jury and audience what he did and 
had learned through his strenuous and most per­
sistent prying, whipping and slapping he could not 
tolerate the idea of being halted in his mad rush 
and flood of what he did. His flood gate of what 
he had done and heard was open hence beware to 
him who interferes, “Let me finish.”

While it is true Mr. Campbell and Mr. Feitz 
say the confessions of the Swain boy according to 
their ideas of freeness and voluntariness were free 
and voluntary, Mr. Todhunter also says the confes­
sion of the little Swain boy was free and voluntary 
according to his idea of freeness and voluntariness 
but as to the Bell boy he says, “ I DON’T KNOW 
THAT I CAN SAY THAT BELL EVER MADE A 
FREE AND VOLUNTARY CONFESSION, I GOT

— 153—



A CONFESSION OUT OF HIM; IT WAS BY PIECE 
MEALS, IT NEVER WAS VERY FREE. OF 
COURSE, HE TOLD IT WITHOUT ANY THREATS. 
THERE NEVER WAS ANYTHING VOLUNTARY 
COME FROM THE BIG NEGRO. (Tr. 277).

Considering the history of these cases, the ages, 
benighted conditions, in the presence of the father 
of Julius, memory of the lynching parties and rope 
phylax, education (both in second reader), alone, 
calamities of their situations, being in the custody 
of white officers who had so unmercifully and in­
humanely whipped and beaten the Bell boy with 
a four and a half foot long by three and a half-inch 
wide cow hide strap admittedly on two occasions 
in the presence of the Swain boy who on one oc­
casion at the command of this officer sat on and 
held his head, raising whelps and knots on his head 
as large as hen eggs and apparently deserted as 
they thought by God Himself as Christ in the Gar­
den of Gethsemane and again in the night time 
before the great Sanhedron and Pilot the following 
day. No one to speak a kind or encouraging word 
or shake their hands, or console or sympathize with 
them or advise them of their rights, in this pitiable 
condition can we say they knew, understood, ap­
prehended and realized what they said and that 
the confessions were voluntarily made or 
made of their own free acts without fear,

154



compulsion, deceit, threat or duress. By no 
mode of reasoning can we persuade ourselves 
to believe that either of these pitiable and helpless 
boys either freely or voluntarily made any of the 
statements attributed to them. It cannot be gain­
said nor denied but openly and specifically admit­
ted by Mr. Campbell that he both whipped and 
slapped the little Swain boy in the ante-room to jail 
in Forrest City and in the presence and hearing of 
the Bell boy on the night following his arrest, nor 
that McDougal, the chief of Police of Forrest City 
on the same night in the same jail in the presence 
of Joe Campbell, a deputy sheriff under his father, 
J. M. Campbell, told the little frightened Swain 
boy that “ We do not want you bleeding in jail,” 
that he was handcuffed, taken to and placed in jail 
in Brinkley where he remained sometime, hand­
cuffed and returned to Forrest City by the same 
Joe Campbell, deputy sheriff, placed in cell for 
awhile, then carried to and placed in Penitentiary 
Walls and there saw the Bell boy on two or three 
occasions beaten as though he were a worthless 
strange country suck egg dog, and who also saw 
many other helpless and friendless convicts sev­
erely whipped and not denied, the Bell boy was 
whipped he says three times in the walls, once with 
the same little Swain boy sitting on and holding his 
head and once beaten so severely that he could not 
sit down nor lie on his sides or back and knots

— 155—



knocked on his head as large as hen eggs. Both 
boys positively and unhesitatingly testified they 
confessed because they were scared with no evi­
dence to show the contrary. We challenge any wit­
ness to put their finger on one jot or tittle of evi­
dence showing that these boys were not scared. The 
only witness who testified as to this was Mr. Jones 
who stated that at time the little Swain boy was 
whipped in jail by Mr. Campbell he did not think 
the boy was much scared. Neither Mr. Campbell 
nor Mr. Todhunter nor Mr. McCullom say anything 
whatever along the line of the boys being scared or 
frightened. In these conditions these boys “Freely 
and Voluntarily” confessed. They were carried to 
the office of the warden, surrounded as above stated 
and without anything whatever being said to show 
a removal of the fear, fright or intimidation, no of­
fer to protect either, no assurance they would not 
be whipped nor be again mistreated, nor offer to 
assist them, no suggestion that they would not be 
harmed, in truth and fact totally nothing was done 
nor said to remove this scare, fright, fear or in­
timidation by either Todhunter who had done the 
whipping and beating the Bell boy to force a con­
fession from him according to his own admission 
and who had whipped many convicts before both 
boys and who had sweated and sweated these boys 
time after time, again and again to get confessions 
out of them, nor Mr. McCullom who had been pres-

— 156—



ent time after time when these boys were sweated 
and assisted in sweating them, standing by sanction­
ing, approving and probably advising and assisting 
in the whipping of the Bell boy and who was 
present with the boys at Greasey Corner when ropes 
were displayed, fires built, lynching parties formed 
and fire brigade arranged for Thomas should he be 
apprehended alive. Both sat according to the evi­
dence like Sphinxes, neither chirped. It is very 
probable neither boy had ever seen a typewriter nor 
had the remotest idea or conception what Feitz was 
doing. Again they were in the presence of two 
perfectly strange men. They did not know whether 
Hargraves and Feitz were officers nor where they 
were from nor whether they would or would not 
be whipped by them. They were again probing 
for money but found none although they made the 
Bell boy divest himself in their presence and gaze 
of every vestige of a garment. These poor helpless 
and benighted boys were treated worse than if they 
had been galley slaves. They were not colored 
because they wished to be colored, they were not 
poor because they desired to be poor, they were 
not helpless because they desired to be helpless, 
they were born of low and humble parents not of 
their own will or voilition. They are irre­
sponsible for their condition in this life. They 
were not asked when born, where, how nor 
condition. They are entitled to the same pro-

— 157—



tection under the law as the sons of the most high­
ly cultured, refined and wealthy parents. Have 
they gotten it? We emphatically say no. We are 
of the opinion that the Bell boy has been given the 
same or worse treatment than if he were a brute and 
for what purpose we cannot fathom unless he again 
and again, time after time protested his innocence 
so this displeased Mr. Todhunter and he opened 
and expended his vile of venom on him.

Q. You had to boll weevil him several times 
before you could get it out of him?

A. I sweated him before he did.

Q. What do you mean by sweating?

A. I mean “Sweated Down” like you are 
sweating me right night now.

Q. In other words you sat down and talked 
to him and boll weeviled him until he told you 
something or you would have kept on if he hadn’t?

A. Yes sir, I expect if I hadn’t got something 
out of him I would have had him there yet.

Q. You have been sweating them since 1908?

A. Longer than that, since 1891.

Q. About thirty-five or forty years?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You are still sweating them?

A. Yes sir.
— 158—



Q. You are still testifying, when they come to 
you (in walls of pen), you go into court and testify 
against them and you have been doing that since 
1908, you are still doing it?

A. Yes sir. (Tr. 293).

Q. Were you having a good time up there? 
(Whipping the Bell boy).

A. Yes sir.

Q. You were enjoying yourself?

A. Not necessarily, I was at work. (Tr. 289).

Q. You had your heart set on this one thing?

A. Yes sir. (Tr. 287).

It is our most earnest and sincere belief and 
contention that neither of these boys made an oral, 
free and voluntary confession. We concede there 
is no hard and fast rule to determine whether or 
not a confession is free and voluntary; however it 
is the duty of the court in determining whether or 
not a confession is free and voluntary, to look to 
the whole situation and surroundings of the accused 
such as his age, strength or weakness of his intellect, 
the manner and place in which he is questioned, 
the fact he is confined in jail, penitentiary walls 
and dungeons, the fact that he has been whipped 
and beaten by the officers to whom he confesses, 
that he has been sweated and sweated down, time

— 159—



after time, again and again, by officers, who had 
whipped and beaten them and to whom they con­
fessed, that the accused were negro boys in hands 
and custody of merciless officers and in absence of 
their mothers, fathers, relatives and friends, among 
strangers, in foreign land and in the night time.

It is said in Dewein vs. State, 114 Ark. 481; “ It 
has been said no general rule can be formulated 
for determining when a confession is voluntary be­
cause the character of the inducement held out to 
a person must depend very much upon the circum­
stances of each case when threats of harm, promise 
of favor or benefits, infliction of pain, a show of 
violence or inquisitoral methods are used to extract 
a confession, then the confession is attributed to 
such influences,”  and “ In determining whether a 
confession is voluntary or not, the court should look 
to the whole situation and surroundings of the ac­
cused. Hence it is proper to consider his age, the 
strength or weakness of his intellect, the manner in 
which he is questioned, the fact that he is in jail 
and everything with the situation.”

It is said in case of Greenwood vs. State, 107 
Ark. 568, “A confession of guilt to be admissible 
must be free from the taint of official inducement 
proceeding from either defendant’s hope or fear; 
and a confession to be admissible must be voluntary 
and made in the absence of threat of injury or

— 160—



promise of reward and made in the absence of any 
influence which might swerve him from the truth.”

It is said in Love vs. State 22 Ark. 336, “ Con­
fessions are not admissible against a party charged 
with a crime unless freely and voluntary made and 
the onus is on the State to prove them of this char­
acter.”

It is said in Young vs. State, 50 Ark 504, “The 
well established rule is, that confessions of guilt to 
be admissible, must be free from the taint of official 
inducement proceeding from either flattery of hope 
or the torture of fear.”

It is said in the case of Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 
303, “ The rule is established in this State in accord 
with the unvarying current of authority elsewhere, 
that a confession of guilt to be admissible, must be 
free from flattery of hope or torture of fear.”  The 
court in the same case said, “ If the confession is 
fairly traceable to the prohibited influence the trial 
judge should exclude it (Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 
336) and his failure to do so is error for which the 
judgment may be reversed.”

Austin vs. State, 14 Ark. 555.

Meyer vs. State, 19 Ark. 156.

Butler vs.. State, 34 Ark. 480.

F o r d  vs. S ta te , 3 4  A r k . 6 4 9 .

— 1 6 1 —



It is said in Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 399, “ In 
Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 305, Chief Justice C'ockrill, 
speaking for the court said; ‘Whether or not a con­
fession is voluntary is a mixed question of law and 
fact to be determined by the court. It is the duty 
of the trial court to decide the facts upon which the 
admissibility of the evidence depends, and his find­
ing is conclusive upon appeal as in other cases where 
he discharges the functions of a jury. Runnells vs. 
State, 28 Ark. 121; 1 Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 219. The 
conclusion to be drawn from the facts is a question 
of law and is reviewable by the appellant court. If 
the confession is fairly traceable to the prohibited 
influence, the trial judge should exclude it, and his 
failure to do so is error for which the judgment 
may be reversed.’ The converse of the doctrine 
thus stated, therefore, is that if the confession is 
voluntary and free from improper influence, and 
not traceable to any prohibited influence previously 
exerted either by promise made by way of induce­
ment or by threat or violence then it is admissible. 
The burden to show this is upon the State. When 
once a confession under improper influence is ob­
tained the presumption arises that a subsequent 
confession of the same crime flows from that in­
fluence (Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 336) ; but this pre­
sumption may be over come by positive proof show­
ing that the subsequent confession was given free 
from that or any other such influence.”

— 162



“ If there is any worldly advantage or physical 
harm threatened or done the confession must be ex­
cluded.”

What was said by the court in case of Am­
mons vs. State, 80 Miss. 502; 18 L. R. A. (NS) 768 
(The Sweat Box Case) is pertinent to this case. 
“ He was perfectly honest and frank is his testi­
mony, this officer. He was intelligent and well 
up in the law as applied to such cases, and nothing 
would have tempted him, we assume, to violate any 
technical requirements of a valid confession— no 
threats, no hope of reward, no assurance that it 
would be better for the prisoner to confess.”

“ The defendant, unless demented, understood 
that the statement wanted was confession, and that 
this only meant release from the ‘Black hole of Cal­
cutta.’ Such proceedings as this record discloses 
cannot be too strongly denounced. They violate 
every principle of law, reason, humanity, and per­
sonal right. They restore the barbarity of the an­
cient and medieval methods. They obstruct, instead 
of advance, the proper administration of truth. It 
is far from the duty of an officer to extract con­
fessions by punishment, on the contrary he should 
warn his prisoner that every statement he may 
choose to make may be used against him in his 
trial.”

— 163—



While Mr. Todhunter, nor Mr. Campbell nor 
Mr. Jones did not use the thumbscrew nor wooden 
boot yet they used the palms of their hands, hame- 
strings with buckle on end and four and a half foot 
by three and a half inch No. 1 cow hide straps 
which is equal to and surpasses first degree bar­
barity.

The court contrary to law and erroneously 
permitted over the objections of defendants the 
witnesses, Todhunter, Campbell, Jones and Feitz, to 
testify as to the contents of the written confessions 
which it afterwards excluded, however, the mis­
chief had been consumated, injury done and no 
doubt influenced the minds of the jury to the great 
prejudice of the defendants as, “ Take the paper 
for what it is worth” (Tr. 244), as explained by 
the court. It could not be added to, nor taken from 
nor explained, however, evidence was as is clearly 
shown permitted to go to the jury to explain and 
add to it and this over the strenuous objections of 
defendants. This was reversible error.

The papers purported to be the written con­
fessions of the defendants were introduced and 
considered in evidence by the court, the state and 
defendants only, “ Take the paper for what it is 
worth.”  It was neither considered nor conceded 
by the defendants that they were real or true nor

- 1 6 4 -



that they reflected or even smacked the real situa­
tion. It was only an admission on the part of the de­
fendants that the papers were executed, this and 
nothing more. It was not nor was it intended they 
were to be taken as true confessions, or that the 
statements contained in them were true or reflected 
the real situation. This is disclosed by the succeed­
ing proceedings. It was not intended nor the idea 
of any one to admit that either of the boys at the 
time of executing the writings that they were free 
of fear, or coercion, or duress, or scare, or fright 
or intimidations or were not overawed and brow­
beaten, nor to admit they were executed either 
freely, or voluntarily or of their free will or volition. 
In truth and fact it was the contention then, con­
tinuously since and now that the confessions were 
the result of the continuous, barbarous, inhuman 
and unmerciful mistreatment, abuse, fear, and 
forced out of them by the long train of misdeeds to 
and towards the boys.

If the oral statements were not free and vol­
untary then the written statements were neither 
free nor volunary for the reason there is absolutely 
nothing to show a removal of the improper influ­
ence surrounding and inducing the oral statements.

It is held in case of Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 336, 
“ When the original confession has been made under 
illegal influence, such influence will be presumed

— 1 6 5 —



to continue and cover all subsequent confessions un­
less the contrary is clearly shown.”

It is said in Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 305, 
“ When the improper influence has been exerted it 
must be shown by the State that it has been remov­
ed before a subsequent confession is admissible.”

It is said in case of Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 
399, “ When once a confession under improper in­
fluence is obtained the presumption arises that a 
subsequent confession of the same crime flows 
from that influence.”

Mr. Greenleaf says, “ In the absence of any 
such circumstances, the influence of the motives 
proved to have been offered will be presumed to 
continue, and to have produced the confession, un­
less the contrary is shown by clear evidence, and 
the confession will therefore be rejected.”

1 Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 221. (15th Ed.).

It is obvious that if a confession is obtained by 
such methods as make it involuntary all subsequent 
confessions while accused is under the operation of 
the same influence are also involuntary.

Mackmaster vs. State, 82 Miss. 459.

Johnson vs. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rept. 423.

Thompson vs. Com. 20 Gratt. 724.

— 166



When once a confession under improper in­
fluence is obtained the presumption arises that a 
subsequent confession of the same crime flows from 
the same influence.

Com. vs. Sheets, 197 Pa. 69.

Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 397.

People vs. Johnson, 41 Cal. 452.

State vs. Needham, 79 N. C. 474.

The burden is on the State to show that im­
proper influence has been removed. The court said 
in the case of Corley vs. State 50 Ark. 308, 
“ Whether or not a confession is voluntary, is a mix­
ed question of law and fact to be determined by the 
court. It is the duty of the trial court to decide the 
facts upon which the admissibility of the evidence 
depends, and his finding is conclusive on appeal as 
it is in other cases where he discharges the func­
tions of a jury.”

1 Greenleaf Ev. (15th Ed.) Sec. 219.

Runnells vs. State, 28 Ark. 121, 
and “ The conclusion to be drawn from the facts 
is a question of law and is reviewable by the ap­
pellate court”  and “ If the confession is fairly trace­
able to the prohibited influence the trial court 
should exclude it.”

— 167—



State vs. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116 
and “ And his failure to do so is error for which the 
judgment may be reversed.”

In the case of Greenwood vs. State, 107 Ark. 
577, the court said, “ The trial judge found that the 
testimony of the defendant was not true and ad­
mitted his confession in evidence, and his finding 
is conclusive on appeal unless we should find that 
the trial court abused its discretion and that the 
confession is fairly traceable to prohibited influ­
ence.”

Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 397.

Both defendants continuously during entire 
trial strenuously denied committing the crime or 
any connection with it.

“ A confession of a defendant unless made in 
open court will not warrant a conviction unless ac­
companied with other/proof that such offense was 
committed.” x

L o v e  vs. S ta te , 2 2  A r k . 3 3 6 .

C. & M. Digest Sec. 3182.

“ A defendant in a criminal case cannot be 
convicted on statements made out of court if he de­
nies the commission of the offense in court.! unless 
such crime is proved by other competent testimony 
tending to establish his guilt, and connect him with 
the crime.

— 1 6 8 —



Greenwood vs. State, 107 Ark 58.

Davis vs. State, 115 Ark. 566.

Clayborn vs. State, 115 Ark. 387.

In the instant case no crime is proven only the 
death of Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas, and 
no one attempts to say that defendants did the kill­
ing, if in fact they were killed at the hands of an­
other. Before a confession will convict, uncorrobor­
ated, it must be made in open court.

Hirshaw vs. State, 94 Ark. 343.

Hubbard vs. State, 77 Ark. 126.

It being the well established rule of law that 
before a defendant can be convicted upon his con­
fession alone it must be made in open court, or if 
made out of court, it must be corroborated by other 
testimony, so applying this rule to instant case we 
are brought to the query, what kind of testimony 
is required to corroborate or what is corroborating 
testimony.

The Spring term of the St. Francis Circuit Court 
convened on Monday, March 19th, 1928, for a
period of three weeks or so much thereof necessary 
to dispatch the business of the court. C. & M. Di­
gest Sec. 2207.

M e lto n  vs. S ta te , 4 3  A r k . 3 6 7 .

— 1 6 9



Judge Davenport, the regular judge being con­
fined in a hospital, Hon. R. J. Williams was elected 
by the members of the bar to preside as judge.

It will be observed the indictment against 
these boys was returned in open court Tuesday 
morning, March 20th, 1928, and served on them at 
11:00 o’clock same day. (Tr. 8). They were arraign­
ed the following Friday, March 23rd (Tr. 17) ; on 
same day they announced neither they nor their 
relatives nor friends were financially able to employ 
counsel to represent them so the court at about 12 
m. Friday March 23rd, 1928, appointed Mr. Knott 
and Mr. Lanier to defend them and set the case for 
trial at 9:00 o’clock a. m. the following Tuesday, 
March 27th, 1928i (Tr. 16). Both appointees 
were kept constantly in the court room the whole 
of the afternoon, Friday March 23rd, and the whole 
of Monday, March 26th, 1928, one having five fel­
ony cases set and on call with all defendants and 
witnesses present, however none of cases were tried 
that afternoon but he did not, nor had no way of 
knowing this, so the same condition the whole of 
the following Monday with all of these cases on 
call and defendants and witnesses all present under 
subpoenas, hence he could not leave the court room 
except for a few minutes at a time as any one of 
these cases was liable to be called for trial at any 
moment. All defendants under bond and none

— 170—



knew what to do or say if his case was called in 
the absence of his attorney. The same was true 
as to Mr. Knott who also had both civil and crim­
inal cases set and on call for all of Monday.

At noon Friday counsel for defendants found 
the sheriff who was the jailer who unlocked the 
inner cell door and permitted defendants to come 
out and they talked to them for only a few minutes 
as they had to procure lunches at the Cafe and 
hurry back to the court room where they were con­
stantly retained until court adjourned that evening. 
Early Saturday morning had subpoenas issued and 
personally delivered same to the sheriff of St. Fran­
cis County, addressed to the sheriff of Pulaski 
County for service upon the convicts in Penitentiary 
Walls the names of whom had been given by the 
boys whom the boys told had seen Mr. Todhunter, 
severely and inhumanely in the walls beat them, 
and Mr. Todhunter, to appear and testify in the 
case. Some of the given and surnames of these wit­
nesses were unknown to defendants and all unknown 
to their counsel. On the same morning at the per­
sonal direction of the defendants’ counsel a sub­
poena was issued for certain persons whose names 
were given by defendants living near Greasey Cor­
ner all of whom were unknown to both attorneys. 
This subpoena was served Monday 26th of March 
(Tr. 5) but the one addressed to the sheriff of

— 171—



Pulaski County was not served until sometime Tues­
day, March 27th, and not returned till in the pro­
gress of the trial of case; on Tuesday morning a 
third subpoena was issued addressed to the sheriff 
of St. Francis County for F. P. Todd and Walter 
Gorman, Sr., which was never served. (Tr. 7).

While it is not disclosed by the record we do 
not feel it would be amiss nor unprofessional to 
place the court in full possession of all facts per­
taining to this case; the attorneys appointed to 
represent the defendants left Forrest City at about 
10:00 o’clock Saturday following the appointment 
in a car in search of and to locate the fathers and 
mothers of these two boys all of whom lived near 
Greasey Corner a distance of about 25 or 30 miles 
from Forrest City, about 3:00 o’clock that after­
noon after going as far as possible in car and then 
walking through fields about two miles they reached 
the home of the father of the Bell boy but learned 
from Robert’s step-mother he had left the country on 
account of having been arrested charged with the 
same supposed crime, placed in jail in Forrest City, 
given the third degree trying to force a confession 
out of him without success, released, returned home 
when certain parties near his home threatened to 
dynamite his home so he left the state and attorneys 
were unable to advise with or secure any informa­
tion or assistance from him. Attorneys learned that

— 1 7 2 —



Robert Swain, the father of the little Swain boy, 
lived about six miles further and proceeded to and 
reached his home between sun down and dark 
finding him in the field plowing. No information 
could be procured from him as he knew nothing fur­
ther than Grady was at home at the time of the ac­
cidental drowning. None of these boys’ relatives 
even knew court was in session or that the boys were 
in jail in Forrest City or had been indicted.

The attorneys returned, reaching Forrest City 
about 10:00 o’clock Saturday night after having 
driven more than 75 miles, and they spent Sunday 
afternoon and part of night in their offices looking 
up the law, hurriedly preparing what instructions 
they could and motions asking for a continuance 
for a reasonable time in which to prepare a defense 
and getting ready to intelligently represent the 
boys.

Tuesday morning, March 27th, at 9:00 o’clock 
this case was called. Three motions were filed im­
mediately, one for disqualification of the sheriff 
to prevent him on account of his extreme activity, 
bias and prejudice against defendants from sum­
moning the jury to try them; second, that a com­
mission be issued by the court directing that the 
testimony of the witnesses confined in the Peni­
tentiary Walls be taken, and third, on account of 
the absence of F. P. Todd, coroner, who held the

— 173



inquest over the body of Julius McCullom which 
was later withdrawn for the reason it was ascer­
tained he did not hold the inquest. The court heard 
evidence on the motion to disqualify the sheriff and 
very promptly and expeditiously over-ruled same 
over objections of defendants.

While it is conceded it is optional with the 
court to disqualify or not disqualify the sheriff so 
long as he acts with due regard of the rights of the 
defendants but it is practically incredible or incon­
ceivable how or in what way or manner a sheriff 
could have been more biased and prejudiced against 
any human being than he was against these de­
fendants.

When you make a survey of his activities to 
and towards these boys from beginning to end, 
every movement, action, move, his whole conduct 
and ^demeanor clearly and plainly discloses and 
portrays his extreme venom, bias and prejudice to 
each of them. When he should have, and was his 
sworn duty, been protecting these illiterate and ab­
solutely helpless boys he was doing the reverse in 
every possible way. When he should have preven­
ted the warden from whipping and beating them 
he was standing by, aiding, abetting, advising, en­
couraging and probably taking an active part in 
beating the Bell boy to such a degree and extent 
of barbarity that he could not sit nor lie on his

— 1 7 4 —



sides nor back, making trips from Forrest City to 
Little Rock a distance of 95 miles to see that it was 
well and faithfully done. The little Swain boy testi­
fied he heard Mr. Campbell tell Mr. Todhunter to 
whip the Bell boy and neither Campbell nor 
Todhunter deny this. Within less than one hour 
after the little Swain boy was placed in his custody 
and charge as sheriff and jailer we find him slap­
ping and whipping him with a three foot hame- 
string while lying on jail floor at his command. It 
was his sworn duty to protect instead of committing 
assault and battery upon this boy. Does it comport 
with justice and a fair trial that a man whose 
sworn duty it was to enforce the law and who does 
the very reverse would summons a fair and im­
partial jury to try this boy. Would he expect the 
men whom he selects to be better men than he? 
Would he expect the power he places in the hands 
of his selectors to be handled more merciful than 
he would handle it? Can we not indulge the 
thought that he would not select a jury whom he 
considered adverse to his principles or who would 
not carry out and into effect his wishes? We think 
not. Counsel for defendant excused 19 of his se­
lections. Water will seek its level. Birds of a 
feather will flock together. A violator of the laws 
associates with violators of the laws and they are 
boon companions, one does the bidding of the other. 
This motion should have been sustained. We make

— 175—



these comments with due regard to Campbell but 
feel constrained that he acted universally unjustly 
and contrary to every precedent or principle of 
justice and law.

We very much regret the friendly colloquy be­
tween the court and attorneys pertaining to motion 
for new trail realizing all were honest and sincere 
in all they said and did as to what was done and 
said respecting the motion for a continuance on ac­
count of the court declining to continue the case 
for a reasonable time to make an investigation and 
prepare to intelligently represent the defendants 
and take the testimony of witnesses in the Peni­
tentiary Walls who were present and had seen the 
whippings administered by Todhunter to defendants 
as well as other mistreatments by him to and to­
wards them, and exceptions to the rulings of the 
court both in refusing to give and modifying in­
instructions asked by defendants.

Please bear in mind that defendants were in­
dicted Tuesday forenoon and the court through an 
oversight or otherwise complacently sit idly by and 
did nothing towards ascertaining whether they had 
or were able to employ counsel until 12 o’clock the 
following Friday, cognizant they were ignorant 
colored boys, hence more than three days and nights 
supinely passed with nothing being done nor said 
and then allowed only two and a half days in which

— 1 7 6 —



to prepare for a defense well knowing defendants’ 
relatives lived from thirty to thirty-five miles dis­
tant from Forrest City and both counsel actively 
engaged in court at the time of appointment and 
would be as docket disclosed both had several im­
portant cases set and on call. It may be surmised 
that counsel at that time should have asked for 
further time, however it is answered that both were 
totally ignorant of the facts of the case further than 
general newspaper rumors in which no reliance can 
be had nor did they know anything whatever of 
either of the boys or any of their relatives, friends, 
neighbors or where they resided or what their con­
ditions were.

When court convened Tuesday morning, March 
27th, at 9:00 o’clock the three above motions were 
filed: 1st, to disqualify the sheriff; 2nd, for a con­
tinuance on account of absence of Coroner Todd, 
and 3rd, asking for a continuance for only a reason­
able time in which to take depositions of convicts 
in Penitentiary Walls. Proof was heard upon the 
motion of the removal of Sheriff Campbell, who 
testified, and motion was very promptly and im­
mediately over-ruled. The motion for continuance 
on acount of the absence of Mr. Todd in so far as it 
applied to Mr. Todd was withdrawn for the reason 
it was reported he did not hold the inquest but 
same was held by a justice of the peace who lived

— 177—



near Greasy Corner, then the motion for a continu­
ance for only a reasonable time to take the proof 
of convicts was taken up by the court who asked 
to see and ordered that motion be given to him, 
which he personally read and over-ruled with ex­
ceptions saved and either laid it on his desk or 
stuck it in his pocket; the court as stated by Mr. 
Hargraves then asked if the state and defendants 
were ready, the state called its witnesses, all of 
whom were present except Mr. Todhunter, the 
sheriff, who had his eye on the gun and 
finger on the trigger, announced he had a phone 
message from him that morning and he would be 
in on the train which was scheduled to reach For­
rest City over the Rock Island Railroad at about 
11:00 oclock a. m., the state announced ready, 
counsel for defendants asked for summons for wit­
nesses of defendants, none of which had been re­
turned but after some search only two to the sheriff 
of St. Francis County were finally located and re­
turns made (Tr. 5 and 6) but the summons for 
Walter Gorman, Sr., and F. P. Todd was never 
served (Tr. 7), counsel for defendants asked for 
rule on both the sheriff of Pulaski County and St. 
Francis County and stated that they were not 
ready for trial; at this juncture which was about 
11:30 the court announced it would recess 
and wait until the train arrived from Little Rock 
for Mr. Todhunter; the train was late, at about

— 178—



11:45 or 12:00 Mr. Todhunter reached the court­
house and announced through Mr. Campbell part 
of convicts and guards were on way from the 
Penitentiary Walls to Forrest City in automobiles 
which he had passed near Brinkley, 25 miles 
west of Forrest City, and they would reach Forrest 
City if no accident occurred in a short time; 
at this juncture the court announced it would ad­
journ until 1:00 o’clock and counsel for defendants 
could see and converse with these convicts and 
guards when they arrived. Upon arrival the guards 
and convicts together with Mr. Todhunter reached 
the office of one of counsel about 12:45 or 12:50 
just as he was leaving to return without a lunch to 
the court room; upon reaching the courtroom the 
judge was on the bench and asked if the convict 
witnesses had arrived with response of an attorney 
assisting in representing the State that they had, 
then the court ordered the case to proceed over the 
objections of defendants and that a panel of petit 
jurors take their seats in jury box. These facts can 
be verified by colloquy between court and counsel. 
Counsel for defendants were doing all within their 
power trying to secure a reasonable continuance in 
order that they might prepare themselves to justly 
and fairly represent defendants. Every request by 
them was over-ruled by the court from the incep­
tion to conclusion. They were not responsible for 
the court’s derelictions in not making notations on 
his record.

— 179—



The facts respecting requested instructions are, 
at the conclusion of testimony both counsel for de­
fendants handed to the court all of instructions they 
had an opportunity to prepare, the court read them 
but stated he would give some, others he would 
modify and others he would not give, there­
upon both counsel for defendants requested the 
court to mark on margin of instructions given the 
word “ Given,” instructions refused the word “ Re­
fused,”  and those modified the word “ Modified,” 
that they wished to save their exceptions to all in­
structions refused and all modified, they also re­
quested the court to pass upon the instructions at 
that time, however it would not, but put them in 
a book lying on his desk by his side.

A few minutes after 1 :00 o’clock the trial pro­
ceeded without abatement until about 6:00 or 6:30
o’clock p. m. with everybody tired and practically%
exhausted, at 9:00 o’clock the following morning 
the court convened, trial resumed and continuously 
continued until noon, court recessed for one hour 
and reconvened at 1 :00 o’clock, ground steadily 
until 6 :00 or 6 :30, all parties were tired and fa­
tigued, recessed until 9:00 next morning at which 
time the jury was instructed and case finally pre­
sented so it is plainly seen neither counsel for de­
fendants had one moment to consult with a single 
witness from the opening of the court, Tuesday 
morning at 9 :00 o’clock until final presentation to

— 180—



the jury, except 5 or 10 minutes just prior to 1:00 
o’clock p. m. Tuesday, March 27th, with convicts 
in the presence of and under guard of Mr. Todhun- 
ter and other guards and were absolutely, unques­
tionably and totally as helpless as new born babes, 
neither had seen nor talked to a witness save Rob­
ert Swain at dusk dark the prior Saturday while 
plowing in cotton field, neither knew one iota of 
the facts pertaining to or surrounding the unfor­
tunate occurrence but what they had gotten from 
the boys in bull pen of jail during a few minutes 
conversation in the presence of and in same room 
with twenty-five or thirty white and colored pris­
oners while the state through its attorney and three 
hired attorneys had been working on the case, 
procuring evidence, forcing confessions and get­
ting ready for trial for more than three months 
while these benighted boys were incarcerated in 
jails, stockades, dungeons, slapped, strapped, whip­
ped as if they were country curs, sweated down and 
a number of times given the third degree.

Counsel for defendants procured the names of 
penitentiary convicts from these boys, the given 
names of some they did not know and some they 
did not know their surnames. To illustrate, Mr. 
Glenn is the given name of Mr. Glenn Fanchier who 
was a guard on walls and who saw Todhunter whip 
the little Swain boy near the gate, in presence of 
J. M. Campbell. Todhunter knew this and well

— 181—



knew this was the man who was wanted and sum­
mons intended for. He was not present at trial but 
Todhunter knew he was on the walls date of whip­
ping and saw this boy whipped by him. Again a 
part of convicts who were summoned were not in 
Forrest City and so far as we know none whose 
names were in subpoena. Todhunter stated to the 
court he would not allow some of them summoned 
to come. Those who were here disappeared some­
time during the afternoon of Tuesday, March 
27th, presumably returned to the stockade. Neither 
counsel for defendants laid their eyes on them af­
ter the beginning of trial.

If the court had only permitted a reasonable 
continuance the convicts who saw the beatings, 
whippings, mistreatments and confessions could 
and would have been located under an order of the 
court, their proof taken. Counsel for defendants 
did all within their perview and power but the 
“ Steam roller” passed over them without hardly 
consideration and gave them only an adieu as it 
passed.

The defendants were not asking for a con­
tinuance for the term but “ That the facts so ex­
pected to be proved by said witnesses are true; 
that the defendants cannot prove said facts by any 
other witnesses; that about 12 m. on the 26th day 
of March, 1928, at the time these cases (There 
were two indictments against these boys, one for

— 182



drowning Julius McCullom and one for disowning 
Thomas) were set for trial by this court they 
caused subpoenas to be issued for said witnesses; 
that they cannot safely go to trial without the testi­
mony of said witnesses; that they believe that they 
can procure the testimony of said witnesses if the 
cause is continued for a reasonable time; that all 
of said witnesses are confined in the penitentiary 
of the state of Arkansas; that they ask said con­
tinuance not for the purpose of delay but to obtain 
justice; that said witnesses cannot be personally 
produced in this court to testify in this case.”

“ Wherefore these defendants pray that a com­
mission be issued by this court directing that the 
testimony of said witnesses be taken in order that 
the same may be produced as evidence on behalf 
of these defendants.

His
Robert X Bell.

Mark.
Grady Swain.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th 
day of March, 1928.

J. F. McDougal, Circuit Clerk.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.

Filed in open court March 27th, 1928.
J. F. McDougal, Clerk.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.”

and “ That they have continuously been confined in

— 183—



jail in Little Rock, Arkansas, from the 30th day 
of December, 1928, up to and until they were 
brought therefrom and placed in jail in Forrest City, 
Arkansas, at the convening of this court where 
they have continuously been and are now in a cell 
of said jail; that neither they nor no one, relative or 
friends, have at any time been financially, or other­
wise, able to employ counsel to defend them in this 
case; that counsel were not appointed by this court 
to defend these defendants until about 12:00 m., 
Friday, March 23rd, 1928; that they are boys of 
the ages of 14 and 19 (18) years of age; that they 
can barely write their names; that they have no 
education; that they know absolutely nothing as to 
the workings of the court nor what is necessary to 
be done therein in way of defense; that both are 
colored; that none of their relatives knew that they 
had been returned from jail in Little Rock, or that 
these defendants would be placed on trial in these 
cases on Tuesday, March 27th, 1928, prior to six 
o’clock, Saturday, March 24th, 1928; that they do 
not ask said continuance for delay merely but to 
obtain justice.

Robert Bell,

Grady Swain.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th

— 184—



day of March, 1928.

J. F. McDougal, Circuit Clerk. 
(Seal) By Fannie Brooks, D. C.

Filed in open court March 
27th, 1928.

J. F. McDougal, Clerk.
By Fannie Brooks, D. C.”

C. & M. Digest Sec. 4170.

Tiner vs. State, 110 Ark. 521.

It is conclusively revealed by the record that 
subpoena to Sheriff of Pulaski County was not 
served until Tuesday, March 27th, returned to For­
rest City and filed in office of clerk sometime that 
day, the hour not given. We presume however, it 
reached the clerk by mail arriving at 6 :00 p. m. 
(Tr. 4). It was not in hands of either sheriff or 
clerk at 11:00 o’clock.

The activity, bias, animosity and perseverance 
of the sheriff to have these boys tried, convicted 
and sentenced to be electrocuted is again disclosed 
at this point as well as all others. He kept in con­
stant touch with his true and faithful friend Tod- 
hunter, in all of his activities and Todhunter with 
him. They were as close together as the Siamese 
Twins. Even before the train departed from Little 
Rock that morning he and Todhunter were com-

— 185-



municating over the phone. Todhunter was needed 
as a most valuable witness to the “ Free and Vol­
untary Confessions.”  To be sure he reached court 
in ample time, he came in a Pullman but he was not 
so anxious and desirous about the other witnesses 
so ordered that they come in car, get to court when 
they could, on or off of time. He must be there 
and ready. It had all been arranged between him 
and his good friend Campbell.

The subpoena was never served on witness 
Gorman, but stuck in the pocket of sheriff or some 
of his deputies and handed back to the clerk. (Tr. 
7). Every witness for the State was subpoenaed in 
ample time and all present— not one missing. Every­
thing was in the very best of order, well oiled and 
running smoothly for the State. State’s attorney, 
Mr. Norfleet, Mr. Bradford, Mr. Hargraves and Mr. 
Feitz of Memphis present. Culled and picked 
jurors, this was Mr. Campbell’s Austerlitz.

It is inconceivable and reprehensible to justice 
that these boys were forced into trial totally with­
out any or time for preparation all of which was 
clearly known to the court who had set graciously 
and quietly by from Tuesday morning until Friday 
noon with indictments in his hands, in jail without 
bond, without raising his voice of inquiry or desig­
nating counsel. There can be suggested nor even sur­
mized a valid or plausible reason why this case

— 186—



could or should not have been set for trial for the 
latter part of the second week or even during the 
third week of the term as requested by defendants 
for under the law St. Francis County was allowed 
three weeks for Circuit Court when the first and 
only a part of second was utilized. It would have 
cost the county not one cent more nor a greater 
burden on the judge, officers, witnesses, attaches 
nor the Campbell culled, assorted and hand picked 
jurors. The court well knew it had just appointed 
counsel, it knew defendants were illiterate colored 
boys, their parents ignorant and poverty stricken, 
benighted and helpless; it knew under the law and 
justice time should have been given for an investi­
gation; it knew counsel could not do justice to de­
fendants; it had the docket before it and well knew 
both attorneys represented other clients whose cases 
were set for trial and likely to be called at any 
moment; it knew these clients and witnesses were 
in the court room waiting their turn; it saw and 
knew both attorneys were in court room all of Fri­
day afternoon and whole of Monday; it well knew 
it was impossible for either to have made or had an 
opportunity to make even a partial, nay a superficial 
investigation yet it forced them to trial in this con­
dition.

Some excuse might have been suggested had 
defendants requested a continuance for the term,

— 187—



but not so, asked for only a reasonable time 
when the lives of two totally helpless and depend­
ent boys were at stake, their counsel with no op­
portunity to consult even one witness ruthlessly 
forced into trial for their lives. They were lambs 
with ravenous and bloodthristy wolves surrounding 
them howling for their innocent lives. Their lives 
being sacrificed upon a mere suspicion. They were 
being sacrificed at the altar of Baal. There were 
several witnesses living in St. Francis County sub­
poenaed by defendants but counsel for defendants 
pledge their sacred word and honor to this court 
they did not even have an opportunity to confer 
with even one of them before putting him on the 
witness stand. They did not reach Forrest City un­
til sometime near or after convening of court, all 
strangers to each of counsel. Save for few state­
ments gotten from the boys in jail the minds of 
their appointed representatives as to the facts were 
as white paper yet “ Both parties announced ready 
for trial” when counsel for defendants were exert­
ing all of their strength and power and begging for 
a continuance for a reasonable time which is borne 
out by disclosures of the record.

At the time the motion for new trial was being 
considered by the court Mr. Knott was out of the 
city but knows what was stated by Mr. Lanier was 
true.

— 188—



It is noted that the court says, “That it is the 
recollection of the court that after the arrival of 
the witnesses from Little Rock, when it was ascer­
tained that nine of them were present, that counsel 
for the defense announced readiness to proceed 
with the trial.” (Tr. 449

“ Appellant having exercised all the dilligence 
that the law requires to procure the attendance of 
these witnesses could not be forced into trial.

“ The ruling of the court under the circumstances 
of this case was erroneous, and was tantamount to 
a denial of the appellant’s right under the constitu­
tion to have compulsory process obtaining witnesses 
in his favor.”

Jones vs. State, 99 Ark. 399.

“ The circumstances were such as to show that 
an attachment was not proper in the case of this wit­
ness who was sick and who on that account could 
not be present, and the last subpoena that had been 
issued in the case of witness Mase McGough had not 
been returned.

“ So there was nothing the appellant could do 
he had not done in order to facilitate the trial of 
the case. A continuance under such circumstances 
is a matter of legal right which could not be denied 
appellant without an abuse of the court’s discre­
tion.”

— 1 8 9 —



Graham vs. State, 50 Ark. 161.

“ Defendant did all he could to avert the pre­
judicial situation in which he was placed and we 
think he should have a new trial to meet the charge 
made against him.”

Davey vs. State, 99 Ark. 553.

“ Where the refusal of the court to continue a 
cause of action on account of the absence of a ma­
terial witness operates as a denial of justice, its dis­
cretion is not exercised reasonably and is subject to 
correction in this court.”

McDonald vs. State, 21 Ark. 460.

Henley vs. State, 10 Ark. 528.

“ The granting of a continuance is largely in 
the discretion of the trial courts and this discretion 
will not ordinarily be controlled by this court. It 
is our opinion, however, that the circumstances of 
this case are so peculiar that some injustice may 
have been done to the defendant somewhere.”

Cannon vs. State, 60 Ark. 576.

(Indicted September 15th; tried September 
27th, convicted September 29th.).

“The state could better afford to suffer a con­
tinuance than to have one of her citizens deprived 
of evidence that might save him from a conviction

190—



of so grave and so severe a punishment as incar­
ceration in the penitentiary. While the subject 
of continuance is one over which the trial courts 
have a sound discretion and their discretion will 
not be controlled except in cases where the discre­
tion is abused, yet in the latter case this court will 
not hesitate to reverse.”

Price vs. State, 71 Ark. 182.

Clark vs. State, 155 Ark. 16.

McElroy vs. State, 100 Ark. 301.

These cases bear upon instant case in that 
counsel for defendants had done all they could pos­
sibly do trying to procure a reasonable continuance 
and at the very moment the case was begun were 
asking for a reasonable continuance but not for the 
term.

We make this statement without reflection up­
on the presiding judge for whom we have the very 
highest regards.

The court committed reversible error in that 
it found and based its judgment exclusively upon 
confessions of defendants without a farthing of cor­
roboration of testimony for there is not a word 
from a witness from inception to conclusion of the 
record disclosing that Julius McCullom or Elbert 
Thomas came to their deaths by drowning except

— 191—



the forced, twisted, pulled, slapped, strapped, whip­
ped and sweated down confessions extracted from 
them by officers who had them under arrest and 
in charge. What witness has directly, or indirectly 
or inferentially testified independently of the con­
fession that they or either of them were drowned? 
Absolutely not one. There is unquestionably not 
one jot or tittle of proof disclosing that they were 
drowned by anyone save extorted confessions.

We have not the remotest proof even that they 
re drowned much less by defendants except 

confessions. No money, no jewelry, no trinkets, 
no clothes nor anything whatsoever has been traced 
from deceased, or the boat or the bayou or any­
where thereabouts to defendants personally or any 
other place through them or that they knew anything 
about the whereabouts of same. No blood stains, 
no tracks, no impressions, no finger prints, no hair, 
no scratches, no scars, no mud, no bruises, no socks, 
no boots, no safety pins, no supporters, no pocket- 
book, no gold, no silver, no bills, no copper, no 
nothing directly, indirectly, presently or inferenti­
ally or remotely disclosed a connection between de­
fendants and deceased or anything connected with 
or surroundings deceased, boat or bayou.

We respectfully request nay challenge the 
state, excluding defendants, to put or point its 
finger to or at one particle of evidence showing

— 192—



Julius McCullom or Elbert Thomas was drowned 
or that a human being laid even his finger tips on 
either of them that afternoon or that any person was 
at or near the boat or bayou that afternoon. B. 
McCullom nor Ransom McC'ullom nor no other wit­
ness knew nor could he or any other witness swear 
whether Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas were 
accidentally drowned or were drowned by defend­
ants or some other person, not a single witness 
testified defendants drowned them nor did a wit­
ness testify to a single corroborating circumstance 
even inferentially connecting either with the 
drowning, nevertheless there was much evidence 
showing human tracks on the side of bayou at and 
near front end of boat yet no one testified that 
there were more than the tracks of two human be­
ings leading down the bank of bayou to and around 
the boat, and further Thomas was a large man 
weighing 175 or 180 pounds so according to human 
nature would have large feet, making large tracks, 
and Julius being white weighing 75 to 80 pounds 
it would naturally follow according to natural law 
he would have small feet making small tracks and 
the Bell boy and the Swain boy being in sizes and 
weights betwen Thomas and Julius it would follow 
as a sequence that their feet and tracks would be 
in sizes between those of Thomas and Julius and 
easily distinguished, however, neither Ransom Mc­
Cullom who was the first to the bayou investigating,

193—



nor B. McCullom, nor any other witness testified 
that any of tracks leading down the bayou to, or 
in front of, or around, the boat were the sizes of 
the tracks of either of defendants.

The Bell boy was in the store that night in their 
presence and before both of them, the acting Cor­
oner and coroner’s jury the following morning and 
the same with Grady Swain, so if any of these par­
ties suspected either of these boys why did they not 
make an investigation? They were present and 
under arrest. They knew the tracks were in the 
wet mud and the sizes of them, they had the boys 
before them and saw and knew the sizes of their 
shoes. No evidence shows the tracks of a human 
being leading from the bayou.

The evidence of an accomplice is not sufficient 
to convict unless the same is corroborated by other 
evidence tending to show the commission of the of­
fense and connecting the defendant therewith and 
the evidence of one accomplice or co-conspirator 
does not nor cannot corroborate another accomplice 
or co-conspirator.

The jury could not convict either of defend­
ants on the testimony of an accomplice unless such 
testimony was corroborated by other independent 
evidence tending to connect defendant with the 
commission of the offense and the corroboration is

— 1 9 4 —



not sufficent if it merely shows that the offense 
was committed and the circumstances thereof. If 
two or more accomplices are produced as witnesses 
they are not deemed to nor can they corroborate 
each other.

Caleb Powers vs. Com. 110 Ky. 386; 53 L. R. 
A. 245.

United States vs. Logan, 45 Fed. 872.

1. Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 381 (15th Ed.).

L. R. C. Law, pg. 170, Sec. 17.

Barkley vs. State, 24 Tex. App. 616; 5 A. S
R. 912*

Stone vs. State, 118 Ga. 705; 98 A. S. R. 145.

Halley vs. State, 49 Tex. Crim. 306; 122 A. 
R. S. 810.

C. & M. Digest Sec. 3181.

C. & M. Digest Sec. 31 82.

These boys were in jail together the after­
noon and night following their arrest and 
again following return of the Swain boy from jail 
in Brinkley until he was taken to Penitentiary 
Walls, hence had ample time to fabricate a story 
had they so wished.

— 195—



“ The court committed error in giving instruc­
tion No. 7. By it the jury were told that they 
might convict the defendant if they were satisfied, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, by the confession alone, 
or in connection with all other testimony in the 
case that he was guilty of the crime charged. The 
confession alone is insufficient to sustain a convic­
tion. There must be other proof of the commisison 
of the offense.”

Instruction No. 7, “ And you are further in­
structed that, should you find that a confession has 
been made by defendant, and should be satisfied 
by such confession or confessions alone, or in con­
nection with all other testimony in the case, beyond 
a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of 
one of the crimes charged in the indictment, then it 
would be your duty to convict; otherwise you should 
acquit.”

It is said in case of Harshaw vs. State, 94 Ark. 
344, “ It is not essential that the corpus delicti be 
established by evidence entirely independent of the 
confession, before the confession can be admitted 
and given probative force. The confession may be 
considered in connection with other evidence tend­
ing to establish the guilt of the defendant. BUT, 
IF THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE

1 9 6 —



CORPUS DELICTI THAN THE CONFESSION OF 
THE ACCUSED, THEN HE SHALL NOT BE CON­
VICTED ALONE UPON HIS CONFESSION. Hub­
bard vs. State, 72 Ark. 126; Meisenheimer vs. 
State 73 Ark 407.”

The court said in case of Iverson vs. State, 99 
Ark. 453, “ The confession, not having been made 
in open court, did not warrant a conviction of ap­
pellant unless it was accompanied with other proof 
that the offense was committed.

In Hawshaw vs. State, 99 Ark 344, the check 
was forged and in evidence. In Iverson vs. State, 
99 Ark 453, the house was broken into and property 
stolen. The corpus delicti was established in both 
cases. There is no similarity between these cases 
and instant case as corpus delicti is not established 
here independent of confessions.

In Hubbard vs. State there was no positive 
proof whether Burns was or was not drowned ac­
cidentally or by some one.

Lind vs. State, 37 Ark. 92.

Smith vs. State, 168 Ark. 253.

Melton vs. State, 43 Ark. 367.

In Johnson vs. State, 135 Ark. 377, it was prov­
en that someone shot the prosecuting witness in 
back while he was sitting at fire with his children

- 197-



at home about dark and defendant a few days 
thereafter admitted he fired the shot so it is seen a 
crime was committed, something positive and defin­
ite but in instant case it is uncertain whether a crime 
has been committed. No proof of a crime. From 
no independent facts in the record could the jury 
reasonably infer that accused had a connection with 
drowning, thence if there is no independent facts to 
connect the defendants with the drowning other 
than the alleged confessions, they should have been 
acquitted.

That a crime has been committed must neces­
sarily be the foundation of every criminal prosecu­
tion and this must be proven by other testimony than 
the confessions to warrant a conviction.

From no independent facts in this record could 
the jury reasonably infer that accused had any con­
nection with the drowning, hence if there is no in­
dependent facts to connect the defendants with the 
drowning other than the alleged confessions they 
should have been acquitted. That a crime has 
been committed, must necessarily be the foundation 
of every criminal prosecution and this must be prov­
ed by other testimony than the confessions to war­
rant a conviction.

It is our most earnest and candid belief and 
opinion that Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas 
were accidentally drowned; every fact and move-

1 9 8 —



ment point directly and specifically to this con­
clusion. Their trap was across the bayou, the wa­
ter had been high, receded and the more it receded 
the more of boat which had not been used for 
sometime would be out of water and upon the 
bank. The water was muddy so as it receded more 
and more of boat was out of water and upon the 
bayou, more and more sediment formed and set­
tled around the part of boat on bank thus making 
it more and more difficult to release and push in­
to water. It is well known and almost axomatic to 
everyone who has used boats that when two or more 
are together for the purpose of and do use 
same for business or pleasure that when one end is 
grounded on bank of river, lake or bayou, with 
sediment accumulated around same the first 
thought or impulse, yea almost the law of nature is 
for one to enter and go to back end of boat so as 
to force the back end down by his weight, trans­
ferring the equilibrium or center weight from the 
middle to back thus causing the fulcrum to shift and 
center of gravity nearer back, the back end to be 
more, and front end less submerged that it may be 
more easily released and pushed or shoved into the 
water.

Thomas being much the larger and heavier of 
the two, he was the one who stood on and made 
the big muddy tracks on back seat or cross piece

— 1 9 9 —



and his weight shifting the center of gravity to back 
end.

Prior to getting into the boat they were at the 
brow or front end on bank, unfastened the rope or 
chain holding the boat, shoved or pulled it loose 
from the mud or sediment, both entered, Thomas 
standing on seat where the big fresh muddy tracks 
were and left Julius in front end or middle, one of 
them had one end of paddle in his hands with re­
verse end either in water or against bank trying to 
push the boat off and into water, the paddle slip­
ped or one, probably both Julius and Elbert moved, 
boat lurched to one side. Thomas was precipitated 
out of boat into water, he could not swim, Julius re­
moved his loosely fastened gum boots, slid or placed 
one foot on side of and jumped off of side of boat 
into the water to assist or rescue Thomas and his 
weight being on one side of boat causing that side 
to submerge into or dip water so this is how water 
came to be in boat; Thomas caught Julius and be­
ing heavier and stronger than him Julius could 
neither release himself nor control Thomas in his 
drowning condition, both finally went down strug­
gling and floundering probably in diverse directions. 
The paddle being of wood and light floated or 
drifted on the water at the will of the wind. The 
gum boots slid or were thrown out of the boat at 
time Julius jumped or slid out of boat and it turned 
to one side or Julius in his excitment removed the

— 2 0 0 —



boots and dropped them into the water. The bayou 
was dragged with both wire and other instruments 
for the bodies of Thomas, Julius and boots, hence 
this wire or instruments separated the boots. Both 
bodies were recovered before the boots.

There was some hearsay reference to the socks 
but it is reasonable to presume if any had been 
found the person finding them would have produced 
them and given evidence as to them and this is es­
pecially true considering so much activity on part 
of State.

The boots were produced and exhibited to the 
jury. If socks were found then why were they 
not cared for and produced as well as boots? Again 
it is remarkably strange that Ransom McCullom 
with all of his zealousness and persistency neither 
found nor saw any socks. In truth and fact Julius 
had on no socks.

We do not consider the gum boot with hole 
in it has the remotest weight or throws any light 
upon the case, unless it be to exhibit the absurdity 
of fabricative confessions in that the boys were 
so money thirsty they actually examined the boots 
to ascertain that one had a hole in the inside of foot. 
Did they have an idea this hole was the opening 
of a slot machine and the foot a receptacle for 
money. Why exaimne boots, garter, safety pin,

— 2 0 1 —



union suit and all of this being done while these boys 
were committing two of the most dastardly mur­
ders?

We most humbly assure the court we have been 
throughout the presentation of this case most sin­
cere and honest in stating the facts, testimony and 
argument with all due regards and respects to the 
court and all parties taking part but are firmly en­
trenched in our convictions that these two helpless 
and benighted boys are as innocent of the crime 
charged to them for which they have been hastily, 
unjustly and erroneouslly convicted and sentenced 
to be electrocuted as new born babes.

We have portrayed to the court the dependent 
condition and unenviable situation we were in dur­
ing the trial without an opportunity of consulting 
even one witness, totally unprepared to meet the 
exigencies as they arose. No valid, plausible, nor 
conveivable reason has been or can be advanced 
why a reasonable time was not extended to the lat­
ter part of the second week or even to a day in the 
third week of term to enable counsel for defendants 
to investigate the facts, see, consult, talk to and 
subpoena witnesses, prepare instructions and get 
ready to intelligently represent and defend these 
two boys who under the codes of moral, humane 
and civil justice were entitled to, as the sons of the 
most wealthy, powerful and most influential citizen

— 2 0 2 —

l



of the state. All was done which could have been 
done under the circumstances and we felt and pur­
sued the same interest as if they had been our own 
children cognizant of their plighted suroundings. 
They were in as pitiable plight as Christ was on 
the night of his arrest and day following, their 
friends and relatives ran away or were afraid to 
come to court and their assistance, those for whom 
one of the boys had run errands, waited on and 
acted as servant for, played with and cared for 
their children and whose children had ridden his 
old and gentle horse up and down the road desert­
ed him, he was turned over to his enemies who 
whipped and beat him as Christ was scourged, and if 
electrocuted will be buried in the potter’s field 
probably between two thieves; they were mocked, 
derided and sweated down and it may be suggested 
that some of their malefactors may gamble, if they 
go, for their only earthly possessions, their old and 
dirty clothes.

We have given this case considerable time and 
attention conscientiously believing defendants have 
neither had a fair nor impartial trial which is shown 
from inception to conclusion of records.

We cannot conceive of a greater miscarriage 
of justice prepetrated upon human beings than has 
been meeted out to these benighted boys whom we 
candidly consider and believe to be as innocent and 
spotless of as a new born babe.

— 203—



We sympathize with Mr. and Mi’s. McCullom 
in the loss of their little boy whom we are clearly 
of the opinion was accidentally drowned which we 
will be able to prove if given a new trial. The mis­
treatment of these boys, especially the Bell boy, is 
nauseating, sickening and repulsive to think of and 
should not be permitted in a civilized community. 
The identical men whose duty it was to guard and 
protect these helpless, benighted and totally depend­
ent boys were the ones who were violating every 
precept and injunction of both God and man, heap­
ing upon them barbarities equal to or greater than 
those of the dark ages.

Which is the greatest punishment, “Sweat- 
Box Case,”  “ Thumbscrew,” “ Wooden Boot,” “ Cal­
cutta Hole” or “ Four and a half feet by three and a 
half inches wide No. 1 Cow Hide Scourge in hands 
of a man of 200 pounds, Herculean strength, and 
active, applied to the naked back of a boy lying 
face down on concrete floor with head and hands 
being held” yet they have the effrontery to say con­
fessions were “Free and Voluntary.”

With all due deference to the trial court, we 
most respectfully submit, asking this court to grant 
a new trial that justice may be done.

W. J. LANIER,
G. B. KNOTT,
Attorneys for Appellants.

— 204



IN  T H E

Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL AN D  G RAD Y SWAIN....Appellants 

v. No. 3486

S T A T E  OF ARKANSAS___________________ .Appellee

APPEALED FROM TH E ST. FRANCIS CIRCU IT

CO U R T

HON. R. J. WILLIAMS. Special Judge

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

H. W. APPLEGATE,

Attorney General 

W A L T E R  L. POPE.

Assistant Attorney General

» . s. raca 4 eouruiT. tfttvt





IN  T H E

Supreme Court o f Arkansas

RO BERT BELL AN D  G RAD Y SWAIN__.Appellants 

v. No. 3486
S T A T E  OF ARKANSAS____________________ Appellee

APPEALED FROM TH E ST. FRANCIS CIRCU IT

CO U R T

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
*

The alleged crime o f which the appellants are 

accused was committed in St. Francis County, near the 
village o f Hughes, on the 29th day of December, 1927. 

B. McCullom, the father of the white boy, Julius Mc- 

Cullom, who was one o f the victims, runs a small coun­

try store at Mack’s place and resides about one-fourth 

mile from the store. In the early part o f the afternoon, 
between 1 and 3 :3 0 ,  the victims. Julius McCullom and 

Elbert-Thomas, and the appellants, Robert Bell and 

Grady Swain, were seen about the store building. There 

is a body o f water known as Cut-off Bayou, about two 

hundred yards from the store. The bayou is rather deep 

in places, being from five to six feet deep where the white



2

boy was found, and from ten to eleven feet deep farther 

out, where the colored boy was found. It also has steep 

banks leading down to the water/\These banks, known 

as the high-water banks, were eight or nine feet at 

the time the boys were drowned.

The two boys were missed from the home and the 

^gto*e-ahout dark on December 29, and search was begun 
for them. Ransom McCullom, the brother of B. Mc- 

Cullom, went in search for them at different places. He 

went to the home o f Grady Swain, as somebody had said 

Grady Swain had been seen with the boys, and he asked 

Grady if he knew where Julius McCullom and Elbert 

Thomas were. (The Swain boy answered that he didn’t 

know where they were and that he could prove that he 

hadn’t been with them that evening and that he could 
prove that he hadn’t seen them that evening^) Grady 

had not been accused o f anything then, and it was not 

known that the boys were drowned at that time. After 

having this talk with Grady Swain, Ransom McCullom 

then went to the bayou, and when he got there he saw 

that the boat had been partly sunk and that the paddle 

was out in the bayou. He then went to dragging for 

the body and pulled the boy, Julius McCullom, out. His 

body was about seven or eight feet down below the boat.

He had no boots on and no socks on. After the water
*

went down he found the boots. ("About eight days later



3

he also found Elbert Thomas’ body about twenty feet 

from the little boy’s body and eighteen or twenty feet 
out in the

This Mr. McCullom also testified that he reached 
the store that afternoon about 3:30, having been haul­

ing freight to the store. That when he first got back 

to the store the little boy, Julius, came out to the truck 

where he was and that that was the last time he ever 

saw him alive, j This witness worked in the store the 

rest o f the afternoon, and about four o ’clock or near 

that time one of the defendants, Robert Bell, came into 
the store and bought something. Thjs_wkness also tes­

tified that when he saw Julius he had on rubber boots. 

That he remembered particularly about the boots be­
cause the boy mentioned his boots as being something 
like the boots that witness wore.

This witness and Mr. Cox carried the boy to his 

home and undressed him. The boy had on no boots 

or socks and had a supporter on one leg and a safety 
pin in his underwear on the other. (Tr., 33-90.)

Raymond Ferguson testified that he was at the M c­

Cullom store on December 29. That he was moving 

a colored man that afternoon and stopped at the store 

late in the afternoon. He states that he saw little Julius 

McCullom and Elbert Thomas and Grady Swain. They



4

were going across the field towards the bayou. They 

were going straight across from the store down towards 

the bayou where the boys were drowned. That a negro 
by the name o f Big Henry Flowers was in the wagon 

with him. (This witness does not remember the exact 
time o f day, but states that it was somewhere between 

one o ’clock and four o ’clock. This witness was well 

acquainted with the three boys and knew that the three 
boys that he saw going from the store towards the bayou 

were Julius McCullom, Elbert Thomas and Grady 

Swain. He heard Grady Swain talking to the colored 

man who was with the witness. Witness stayed around 

the store twenty-five or thirty minutes and then went 
V>n home. (Tr., 91-103.)

A. P. Campbell testified that he was acquainted 

with Grady Swain and Robert Bell and Julius McCul­

lom and Elbert Thomas. This witness, a colored man, 
lives in the vicinity of the store and was at the store 

about two or three o ’clock in the afternoon and saw 

Robert Bell at the store. This witness then came back 

to the store about dark and Robert Bell went home with 

witness and stayed with him that night. They both 

rode one horse from the store to witness’ home. On 

the way to this witness’ home Robert Bell told the wit­

ness that he had drowned Elbert Thomas and that Grady 

Swain had drowned the little McCullom boy. They



5

had already found the body of the McCullom boy and 

Robert Bell told the witness that he and Grady Swain 

did the drowning. This witness further said that R ob­
ert Bell talked like they drowned the boys to get some 
money. (Tr., 104-122.)

Henry Flowers, a colored man, testified that he was 
acquainted with Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas 

and Robert Bell and Grady Swain, and remembers the 

day that the two boys were drowned. He testified that 

he saw Grady Swain and Julius McCullom and Elbert 

Thomas together some time in the evening at the M c­

Cullom store. He saw them going down across a little 

pasture from the store to the bayou. The three o f them 

were together at the time and he saw them going from 

the store across the pasture to the bayou just as he was 
getting on the wagon with Raymond Ferguson. That 

Grady Swain holloaed at the witness just as he was get­
ting on the wagon. (Tr., 123-130.)

Joe Cox testified that he lived about a mile and a 

half from the McCullom store and between the McCul­

lom store and the place where Grady Swain lived at that 

time. On the day that the boys were drowned he saw 

Grady Swain coming by his house, going from towards 

the store to his home. It was just about dark when 

Grady Swain passed his house. (Tr., 426-432.)



6

Mrs. Lena McCullom, the mother of Julius McCul- 

lom, testified that her boy wore two pairs o f socks the 

day he was drowned, one pair o f men’s socks over a 

pair o f girls’ socks. She stated that she noticed thatNthe 

socks that he pulled off the night before had one o f  his 

supporters left on it. That she did not know how the 

other sock was fastened up. She identifkeT the boots 

that were found in the bayou as her bb^s rubber boots. 
She also stated that she recognized the socks that were 

brought up from the bayou as being the boy ’s socks. 
Mrs. McCullom further testified that she was at the store 

in the afternoon and saw her boy, Julius, there and left 

him at the store about three o ’clock or three-thirty. That 

about an hour later Robert Bell came to her home and 

asked her if there was anything he could do about the 

house. She told him to go back to the store and get 

her some coal oil. He did so and then she sent him back 

to the store and told him to help around the store. When 

Robert Bell first came to the house he asked if Julius 

had come home yet, and then asked her if there was 

anything about the place that he could do for her. (Tr., 
324- 330.)

Marcus Feitz. who is at the present; timp a rmret; 

£_e_pQ£ter_-o f  the Second Judicial Circuit, testified that he 

took the confessions o f Robert Bell and Grady Swain.

4



7

He testified that he wrote their statements on a type­
writer. That after writing them he then read them 

over to each one o f the defendants and asked them if 

the statement was correct. Gde testified that the state­

ments were made voluntarily and that the defendants 

were informed that the statements were likely to be used 

against them as evidence in the case. At that time this 

witness had an office in Memphis, Tennessee, and was 
taken to Little Rock by Mr. Hargraves, special counsel 

for the State. ^That they reached Little Rock about 

five o ’clock one Sunday afternoon. That the boys were 

brought into the office by some trusties^ Mr. Hargraves 

asked the boys all o f the questions. T h e boys jwere not 
scared and they talked freely. He wrote down the sub­

stance o f what they said. Mr. Hargraves told the boys 

he wanted them to tell the truth, and first asked them 

if they were willing to give their statements and they 
said they were. He told them that their statements 

would be used in the trial and told them that they didn’ t 

have to make the statements. First he took the state­

ment o f Grady Swain. Robert Bell was there in the 

room and heard his statement. After writing the state­

ment o f Grady Swain the witness read it to him and 

asked Grady Swain if it was correct, and he said yes, 

and then he signed it. Robert Bell said he couldn’ t sign 

his name so he signed by mark, and Mr. Feitz signed as



8

a witness. These confessions were then introduced in 
evidence. (Tr., 131-151.)

“ Statement o f Grady Swain, taken at Little 
Rock, Arkansas, January 29th, 4 :50  p. m., 1928.

QUESTIONS BY  MR. HARGRAVES:
Q. Grady, did you live down there close to 

Mr. McCullom?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you know Mr. McCullom’s son, 
Julius?

A. Yes, sir.

'b Q. Did you know the colored boy by the 
name o f Elbert Thomas?

A. Yes, sir.

J  Q. When was the last time you saw Elbert 
Thomas with Mr. McCullom’s son, Julius?

A. That evening.

Q. N ow what evening was that?
A. The evening the two boys was drowned.

L Q. D o you know why they were drowned? 
How come them to be drowned?

A. Yes, sir.

| Q. Did you see them drown?
A. Yes, sir.

% Q. Grady, begin right there and tell us when 
the scheme was made, when you agreed to drown 
them and how they were drowned, and the last 
thing that was seen or done with them, just begin 
there and tell it in your own way.



9

A. Yes, sir. Robert Bell began to step up to 
me on the porch. I was setting on a soda water 
box. He says, ‘Mr. Mack McCullom’s little boy 
had_a roll o f rppnev on him, he were going to kill 
him and take it and get it, and Elbert Thomas, he 
told me, that he had some money on him, too; he 
didn’t know how much it was on either one of 
them, but he were going to kill him and take it 
from him. He didn’t say how. Robert Bell, he 
was already down there at the boat. I left the store. 
I com epn with Elbert Thomas and Julius McCul- 
lom. (^Robert Bell got in the middle of the boat 
next to Elbert Thomas and asked him to let him 
see his pocketbook and took five dollars out of 
the pocketbook, and I was at the end o f the boat 
after he pushed Elbert Thomas over. Then he 
grabbed Julius and held him, and I took the money 
off o f Julius, fifteen dollars and a nickel, one five 
cents, and I shoved him in, and he told me to, and 
he took the money, and he said he was going to 
take it home with him and hide it down back of 
the house, and he said, ‘When it settles down he 
were going to give me half o f the money.’ He went 
to the store, bought one big stick of candy with the 
nickel, and he came back and give me a piece, and 
he went back to the store, and I went home. That’s 
a ll.)

? Q. You said he pushed Elbert Thomas in. 
D o you mean Robert Bell pushed Elbert Thomas 
in the lake or in the bayou?

A. Yes, sir.
i^Q . Then who held Mr. McCollum’s boy 

under?
A. He did. He told me to shove him out and 

I did shove him out.
Q. Did he come up any after you pushed him 

in the water?



10

A. Yes, sir, once.

Q- Did Thomas cry or holler, did he know 
what was going to happen to him, until after he 
was pushed in the water?

A. No.

/ ! )  Q- W ho took Julius McCollum's boots off?
A. I took off one and Robert the other.

, sL Q. Were they laced up?
A. No, sir; gum boots.

iji Q. Now, what did you do with the boots 
after you took them off?

A. Robert Bell pitched them in the water.

Q. Did you take his boots off before you 
pushed Julius in?

A. Yes, sir.

/ ~f Q. Did you notice how his socks were fast­
ened or what kind of socks he had on?

A. Yes, sir; he had on a sock with a safety pin 
pinned in it and a sock with a garter to it.

i §  Q. D o you mean he had one garter on one 
sock and a safety pin holding the other sock up?

A. Yes, sir.

A. No, sir.

^  Q- Did you notice about a hole in one o f 
his boots?

A. I know there was a hole in one o f them; 
I think it was his left one.

'll Q. What part o f the boot had the hole in it?



11

A  Foot part. (Indicating.)
•t ~l/Q- Inside part o f the foot o f the boot?

A. Yes, sir. At the time Robert Bell men­
tioned the fact to me that Julius and Elbert had 
some money Big Henry Flowers and Bob Flowers 
was going home. Bob Flowers had a package un­
der his arm, then Robert Bell left and went around 
the garden toward Chatfield and I went down with 
Elbert and Julius, and when we got there Robert 
Bell was already at the boat, sitting on the end of 
the boat. The one nickel was the only coin we got 
from them and this was spent for the stick of candy 
Robert Bell got at Mr. McCollum’s store; jjLwas a 
black nickel. I went home and I didn’t see Robert 
any more until he was arrested at Chatfield.

I make this statement in the presence o f R ob­
ert Bell, Mr. Todhunter, Mr. B. McCollum, Mr.
S. S. Hargraves and Marcus Fietz, and I make it 
o f my own free will, without any threats of vio­
lence, promise of reward or remuneration, and I 
make said statements because they are the truth, 
and I have Jbeen advised that they may be used in 
court as evidence.

(Signed) Grady Swain. 
Witnesses; S. L. Todhunter and Marcus Fietz.”

‘ ‘Statement of Robert Bell, taken at Little 
Rock, Arkansas, January 29th, 1928, at 5;30 p. m.
QUESTIONS BY  MR. HARGRAVES:
' Q. Robert, was you at Mr. McCollum’s store 

the evening that Elbert Thomas and Julius M cCol­
lum got drowned?

A. Yes, sir.

1 Q. How long was this before the boys were 
drowned?



12

A. About a half an hour.
5 Q. Tell me who was up at the store when 

you left to go down to the bayou.
A. Tom  and Willie Thomas besides this boy 

Grady Swain, he was up there too. Julius was at 
the store too, but Elbert was down to his brother’s 
house, and when he came back I was already down 
to the boat. Mrs. McCollum, Julius’ mother, and 
Mr. Ransom McCollum was there at the store 
working.
4 Q. Where was Mr. B. McCollum?

A. He was sick; he was back in the room 
there, sick.

4 Q. Did you know Elbert Thomas and Julius 
were going down to the bayou to bait the traps?

A. I knowed Elbert was.
l> Q. Did you know then Elbert had some 

money?
A. Yes, sir; I knowed he had some, but I 

didn’t know how much he had.
1 Q. Did you know then that Julius had a roll 

o f money on him?
A. I knowed he had some money, but I didn’t 

know how much he had.
? Q. W hy were you down at the boat waiting 

for them to come down there?

A. I was down there looking at the water, 
because the next day I was going fishing if the water 
wasn’t too high.

Ck Q. Was that the first time you thought about 
drowning these boys for their money?

A. Yes, sir; the first time.



13

t£> Q. W ho pushed Elbert Thomas in the bayou? 
A. I did.

/ /  Q. Did he have any idea you were going to 
push him in before you did it?

A. No, sir; I don’t think he knowed it.
!%. Q. Had you already gotten his money?

A. No, sir.

I Q. When did you get the money?
A. I asked Elbert for his pocketbook. He 

handed me his pocketbook and I handed it to Grady 
Swain, and Grady Sv/ain he taken five dollars out 
o f it, then Elbert Thomas he axed me was I going 
to give him the pocketbook back, and I told Grady 
to hand it to me, and he handed it back to me, and 
I give it back to Elbert, and he put it in one pocket, 
I not noticing which one. Then I tilts the boat one 
sided and pushed Elbert Thomas out, whiles Grady 
holds Julius in the boat. After I tilts the boat over 
and pushes Elbert out, I takes hold of Julius and 
Grady takes the money out o f Julius’ pocket, it 
was one five-dollar bill we taken off this colored 
boy Elbert Thomas, and takes a five-dollar bill 
and a ten-dollar bill and a ‘V ’ nickel off o f Julius, 
it was a burnt nickel, -----------

/ Q. What happened after you took the money 
off o f Julius?

A. Then us drowned him.
I ( Q. How did you do that?

A. I holds him while Grady puts the water 
in his face to keep him from hollering.

/(a Q. Then did you throw him in the bayou?
A. Yes, sir; just pitched him in the bayou 

and come on to the bank.



14

/ 7
Q. W ho pushed him in the bayou?
A. He did; I holds him and he strangles him, 

and when I turns him loose he just pushes him right 
off into the bayou.

(f Q. What became o f his boots?

A. Grady he pushed one o f them off and I 
pushed the other one off.

Q. Did you notice how his socks were fast- 
when you took his boots off?

A. Yes, sir; I noticed how his socks were fast­
ened. One of them was fastened to his union suit 
with a safety pin and the other one was fastened 
with a supporter.

■P& Q. What kind o f boots did he have on?
A. Gum boots; they was rubber boots.

V ! Q. Where did you go then after you landed 
the boat?

A. I went up to the store and got a stick of 
candy. I started back down to the bayou, and I 
started back the way I come and Grady he was up 
there by Mr. Mack’s old barn, and he whistled to 
let me know where he was. I goes there; I breaks 
this candy half in two, and then I gives him half 
o f it. He told me he was going to keep the money, 
because if he give it to me he was scared I would 
run off with it, and he wouldn’t get none o f it, so 
that was all we had to say that day. I can’t give no 
account of nothing but that V  nickel that is all I 
can give any account of.

"lr 'v ' Q. Then where did you go after that?

A. I went from Mr. Mack’s store down to 
his house. I started to churn, but the milk was cold 
and the butter wouldn’ t come, then she tells me to

V



15

get on my horse and go down to the store and get 
a gallon o f coal oil; I goes down there to get the coal 
oil and comes back up to the house and takes Her­
bert back up there with me, and then I come back 
to the store and went down to Willie Thomas’ 
house and then goes back to the store, and then gets 
on my horse and goes as far as Mr. Black’s cook’s 
house. Willie Thomas went that far with me, and 
I saw Ophelia and L. D. This was before they 
found Julius. I left there and came back to the 
store and got my horse and went down to A. P. 
Campbel’s house and stayed all night. I turned my 
horse loose. I leaves my horse down there and goes 
home the next morning. After going home I asked 
papa what time it was. He told me it was 7:30. 
About the time I walked back over to Mr. W. S. 
Thomas’ store it was about 8:30. I goes on back 
to A. P. Campbell’s and gets my horse, and then 
I comes back and gets the mail and goes to Chat- 
field, and I went there and put the mail in the post- 
office, and was standing up there talking to Mr. Roy 
McGraw, and Mr. Hulen walked up there and 
arrested me.

^ 3 Q. Had you told anybody up until this time 
you had drowned Elbert Thomas and Julius?

A. No, sir; nobody but A. P. Campbell, 

v '* ' Q. When did you tell A. P. about it?

A. Right after they had found Julius, and 
A. P. said we had done a mighty bad thing.

Q. Did you tell A. P. how much money you
got?

A. No, sir; I never told him.

Q. Did you tell A. P. Campbell why you 
drowned them?



16

A

A. No, sir; I just told him Grady and I 
drowned Julius and Elbert; that is all I told him.
> H Q. Did he caution you not to tell anybody 
else about it?

A. No, sir! he just said we had done a mighty 
bad thing; that is all he said.
**0 Q. How old is A. P.?

A. I don’t know sir, how old he is.
I make this statement freely and voluntarily, 

without any threat o f violence or promise o f immu­
nity or reward, because it is the truth, and after I 
was advised that it may be used in evidence in court, 
and I make it in the presence of Mr. Todhunter, 
Mr. B. McCollum, Mr. S. S. Hargraves and Mar­
cus Fietz. Signed by Robert Bell with his mark.
Witnessed by S. L. Todhunter and Marcus Fietz.”  
(Tr., 142-151.)

Appellants make two contentions in this case. 

First, that the Court erred in permitting the confessions 

o f the defendants to be read, and second, that there is 

not sufficient evidence outside o f the confessions to war­

rant the jury in believing that the crime was committed.

TH E  CONFESSIONS WERE PROPERLY IN T R O ­

DUCED IN EVIDENCE.

It is true that there was some evidence to the effect 

that the sheriff had whipped the Swain boy while he 

was in jail at Forrest City for being impudent to him, 

and there is also proof that the warden, S. L. Todhunter,



17

had whipped both of the boys for lying tn him The 

Swain boy had already admitted to the sheriff that he 

was connected with the drowning of the two boys and 
had first told him that he and Elbert Thomas had 

drowned JuliusJMcCullom, but after the body o f Elbert 
Thomas was found the Swain boy then told the sheriff 
that he and Robert Bell drowned both of the boys. The 

officers continued in their efforts to get the boys to dis­

close what they had done with the money that was taken 
off o f these boys, and in their efforts to get them to tell 

the truth about the moneyf- they had both been unruly 

and impudent and had provoked the officers to whip­

ping them. (J^ut the proof is clear and undisputed that 

it was several days before the confessions were made that 

the boys were whipped and that at the time the confes­

sions were made there were no threats of any kind what­
soever, and great care was used by Mr. Hargraves, special 

counsel for the State, to explain to them that their con­

fessions would be used as evidence against them, and 

that they did not have to make the statements unless 

they wanted to. It is true that the boys testified that 

the statements were not voluntary, but the testimony of 

Marcus Fietz, S. S. Hargraves, Sheriff Campbell and S. 

L. Todhunter clearly establishes that the statements were 

voluntary. It is only necessary for the State to prove 

by preponderance o f the evidence that the confessions



18

were voluntary in order for them to be introduced into 

evidence, and this Court has held that the action o f a 

trial court in admitting a confession on conflicting evi-- 

dence that it was voluntary is proper.

Iverson v. State, 99 Ark., 453.

Hall v. State, 125 Ark., 267. .

This Court has ruled on this question in the case

of Smith v. State, 74 Ark., 397, in which the Court said:
“ Appellant was convicted of the crime of 

burglary, the only proof connecting him with the 
commission o f the offense being his own confession, 
and it is argued in his behalf that the confession 
was extorted from him by threats and physical vio­
lence. He was arrested by a police officer in the city 
of Helena, where the offense is alleged to have been 
committed, and confined in the city prison for one 
day, and then taken to the county jail. He testi­
fied that the police officer who arrested him whip­
ped him severely and extorted a confession from 
him. This is not denied, and must therefore be 
taken as true. The prosecution did not, however, 
introduce testimony to establish the alleged confes­
sion made to the police officer, but proved a con­
fession made to the sheriff and jailer the following 
day, while confined in the county jail.

“ The sheriff testified that appellant sent for 
him, and confessed having committed the crime; 
that the confession was free and voluntary, and that 
no promises or threats were made to appellant to 
induce him to confess, and that no violence was 
offered or inflicted. In this he was fully corrobo­
rated by the jailer, who also testified to the con­
fession and all the circumstances under which it



19

was made. The sheriff said: ‘I told him that I
would not promise him anything; that he should 
not be whipped while in jail unless for disturbance 
or disobedience o f orders; and he told me the rea­
son he wanted to tell this was because there were 
three others in all, and he wanted to get them all 
punished the same as he.’ Appellant testified that 
the confession in jail was extorted from him by the 
sheriff, jailer and chief o f police, by having him 
severely whipped; but this is denied by each o f those 
officers, and the trial judge found that his testi­
mony was not true, and admitted the confession in 
the evidence.

“ In Corley v. State, 50 Ark., 305, Chief Jus­
tice Cockrill, speaking for the Court, said: ‘Whether 
or not a confession is voluntary is a mixed question 
of law and fact, to be determined by the Court. It 
is the duty of the trial judge to decide the facts upon 
which the admissibility o f the evidence depends, 
and his finding is conclusive on appeal, as it is in 
other cases where he discharges the function of a 
jury. Runnells v. State, 28 Ark., 121; 1 Green- 
leaf, Ev., Sec. 219. The conclusion to be drawn 
from the facts is a question of law, and is reviewable 
by the appellate court. If the confession is fairly 
traceable to the prohibited influence, the trial judge 
should exclude it, and his failure to do so is error, 
for which the judgment may be reversed.’

“ The converse o f the doctrine thus stated, 
therefore, is that if the confession is voluntary and 
free from any improper influence, and is not trace­
able to any prohibited influence previously exerted 
either by promise made by way o f inducement or by 
threats or violence, then it is admissible. The bur­
den to show this is upon the State. When once a 
confession under improper influence is obtained, 
the presumption arises that a subsequent confession



20

o f the same crime flows from that influence. Love 
v. State, 22 Ark., 336 ), but this presumption may 
be overcome by positive proof showing that the 
subsequent confession was given free from that or 
any other such influence. 1 Greenleaf, Ev., Sec. 
221; Maples v. State, 3 Heisk, 408; Jackson v. 
State, 39 Ohio St., 37; State v. Carr, 37 Vt., 191; 
Simmons v. State, 61 Miss., 258; State v. Guild, 
10 N. J. L „ 180.”

The same question was before the Court in Turner

v. State, 109 Ark., 332, in which the Court said;
‘ ‘Counsel for defendant invoke the rule that, 

when improper influences have been exerted to ob­
tain a confession from one accused o f crime, the 
‘presumption arises that a subsequent confession of 
the same crime flows from that influence.’

‘ ‘That contention, it is true, involves a correct 
proposition of law; but it is equally well settled 
that such presumption ‘may be overcome by posi­
tive evidence that the subsequent confession was 
given free from undue influence.’ Smith v. State, 
74 Ark., 397.”

In the light o f these authorities and the testimony 

of the gentlemen who were present when the confessions 

were made and signed, we feel that there is no merit 

whatever in the contention of the appellants that the 

confessions were not voluntary.

TH E CORPUS D ELICTI W AS W ELL ESTAB­

LISHED.

The evidence establishes that Grady Swain, Elbert 

Thomas and Julius McCullom were seen going to the



I ^  t,'V '
r>

21 -

bayou about three-thirty. Robert Bell had been seen 

about the store that afternoon, but was not with the 
boys at that time. The testimony of Ransom M cCul- 

lomj s  that there was evidence of a struggle in thgjaoat 

where the boys’ bodies were found. The boy’s father 

testified that he had been carrying money in his boots 
and that they found some money stuck in his leather 

boots which the boy had left at home the day he was 

drowned. These negro boys evidently knew that the 
boy kept money in his boots, and when the boy v/as 

found both his boots and his socks had been removed. A 
short time after the proof showed that the boys disap­

peared Robert Bell was at the store and purchased some­

thing. The boat which Julius McCullom and Elbert 

Thomas had been using at the bayou in setting out their 

traps was pulled_up a considerable distance on the bank. 

Therefore it would be unreasonable to believe that they 
were accidentally drowned, because if they had been 

drowned accidentally in an effort to cross the bayou the 

boat would have been out in the water or lying loosely 
against the bank.

This Court held in the case of Melton v. State, 43 
Ark., 367, that the confession o f the defendant accom­

panied with proof that the offense was actually com­

mitted by some one warrants a conviction.

r



22

Here the proof certainly .sbnwg or tends to show, 

that this crime was committed by someone. We cannot 

agree with counsel for appellant in their statement that 

it would be reasonable to conclude that these boys were 
accidentally drowned. In the first place, Grady Swain 

was seen going with the boys to the place where their 

bodies were found, and if they had been accidentally 

drowned he would have known about it and would cer­
tainly have told it, and then all the circumstances sur­

rounding the finding o f the dead bodies indicate that 

someone else had a hand in their drowning. It would 

hardly be reasonable to imagine that this eleven-year-old 
boy would pull off his boots and attempt the rescue of 

Elbert Thomas, who, the proof showed, weighed 175 

pounds, and then it is unreasonable to believe that 

\Thomas could have fallen out of the boat which was 
I pulled out to a considerable distance on the shore, and 

found some-feweilirTeel JWay from thy boat

We feel that there can be no doubt but that the 

testimony in this case shows that these two defendants 

planned this outrageous murder just as they said they 

did in their confessions. Their confessions Revealed lit­

tle details which no one on earth would have known 

about except the defendants themselves after haying

ted in the murder.
-------- m I | '-"***•



23

We respectfully submit, therefore, that the judg­
ments o f conviction should be affirmed.

Respectfully,

H. W. APPLEGATE,

Attorney General

W A L T E R  L. POPE,

Assistant Attorney General





Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL AND GRADY SWAIN, Appellants.

No. 3486. VS.

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellee.

Appealed from St. Francis County Circuit Court.

RESPONSE TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE

W. J. LANIER,

G. B. KNOTT,

Attorneys for Appellants.





IN THE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

ROBERT BELL AND GRADY SWAIN, Appellants.
No. 3486. VS.

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellee.

Appealed from St. Francis County Circuit Court.

RESPONSE TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE

Were it not for pardonable inaccuracies of 
facts and misconception of law by the Distinguish­
ed Assistant Attorney General pertaining to this 
case who clearly has not given same the careful 
and painstaking attention as did the writers of the 
original and this response brief we would not fur­
ther transgress upon the time of this Court, how­
ever, we are constrained to, and are clearly and 
firmly of, the opinion that the defendant boys are 
as innocent of the surmised offense charged to 
them as he or we, and for these reasons by per­
mission of this Court we will respond to the brief 
of appellee hoping and trusting we may be of some



assistance to, rather than a burden upon, the 
Court.

Appellee, on page one, assumes Julius Mc- 
Cullom was a victim without further explanation. 
We presume he intended to convey the idea he 
was drowned by defendants in pursuit of money, 
yet there is not in the entire record one whit of 
evidence disclosing whether he was drowned by 
defendants, or by some other person, or by acci­
dent, except the confessions forced out of defend­
ants by hand slappings and beatings, barbarous 
strappings with buckle end of a three-foot hame- 
string applied by the sheriff to the bare back of 
a 14-year-old boy, small of stature for his age, 
lying face downward on concrete floor of jail in 
the presence of and under the sanction of John I. 
Jones, and who, while confined in the Penitentary 
Walls, had on three several occasions seen the 
Bell boy whipped as though he were a dumb brute 
and heard him hollering with pain and misery 
caused by the regulation blacksnake scourge ap­
plied to his practically naked and bare back as if 
he were a raving maniac, and who had also seen 
other helpless human beings beaten as though 
they were animals, and the unmerciful and inhu­
man beatings with a No. One cowhide scorpion 
scourge, four and a half foot long by three and a

— 2—



half inches wide, in the hands of a Hercules ap­
plied to the naked back of a boy who guesses he 
is 18 years of age, small of stature for his age, ly­
ing face downward on concrete floor in Pentiten- 
tary Walls with his head and hands held by an­
other sitting astride his head (holding his hands, 
head and shoulders), leaving the helpless and 
creature in such pitiable condition and so bruised 
and lacerated he could neither lie on his back 
nor sides with lacerations and whelps on his back, 
and knots on his head as large as hen eggs.

What witness testified Julius McCullom or 
Elbert Thomas were drowned by defendants? 
None, no not one. What witness testified that 
Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas were not ac­
cidentally drowned? B. McCullom did not, Ran­
som McCullom did not, Mrs. Lena McCullom did 
not, Raymond Ferguson did not, A. P. Campbell 
did not, Henry Flowers did not, Joe Cox did not, J. 
M. Campbell did not, John I. Jones did not, S. L. 
Todhunter did not, nay verily not one witness did; 
then we have neither proof that they were drowned 
by defendants nor proof that they were not acci­
dentally drowned or drowned by some third party 
being unquestionably clear, plain and uncontra­
dicted facts, why should the distinguished Assistant 
Attorney General refer to Julius McCullom being 
a victim?

— 3—



On page 2 appelle refers to “ Where the 
colored boy was found.”  Thomas was 19 years of 
age and weighed from 175 to 180 pounds so it is 
plainly seen he was not a boy but a man. (Tr. 317).

Again appellee on same page says, “ The two 
boys were missed from the home and the store 
about dark on December 29” which is an error as 
Julius was missed about sundown, nor was Thomas 
ever at the home of Mrs. McCullom so far as dis­
closed by the whole record. So far as revealed 
by the entire record he was not missed nor was a 
thought of nor a consideration given to him until 
after the body of Julius was removed from the 
bayou.

During all of the search, research and inquir­
ies for Julius at the homes of Mr. McCullom, 
Presley Jackson, Willie Thomas and Robert Swain, 
father of Grady Swain, the name of Elbert Thomas 
was not mentioned. No one made investigation to 
see if he was at his home. No inquiries as to his 
whereabouts. Where he went. What he did nor 
where he was. He was seen at the store with 
Julius that afternoon, had been with him the day 
before, very often at the store with Julius, lived 
only a short distance from store hence we make 
the query why did not Ransom McCullom go to 
his home to investigate whether he and Julius

4



were there or to ascertain if he knew where 
Julius was and the answer is the big, fresh, mud­
dy tracks on seat or cross piece of boat. Whose 
big, fresh muddy tracks were these? Who stood 
on the seat and made these tracks? Ransom Mc- 
Cullom is the witness who saw them. Knew they 
were made by a big man. Knew Thomas was a 
big man, hence would have big feet and make big 
tracks. Knew Julius and Thomas were together 
that afternoon, then why nothing done to locate 
Thomas when these big, fresh and muddy tracks 
were seen and Julius was gone? He well knew 
neither of defendants made these tracks but a 
very remarkable coincidence in that no inquiry of 
nor search was made for Thomas until after re­
moving the body of Julius, yet he and Julius were 
last seen together. Why did Ransom McCullom 
go to the home of Robert Swain and not the home 
of Elbert Thomas for Julius? Why did he not 
see and make inquiry of the boys other than 
Robert Bell and Grady Swain who were in the 
store and with Julius that afternoon?

On page 48 of bill of exceptions B. McCullom 
says:

Q. When this boy, Bell, came up there at 
3:30 or 4:00 o’clock to go down with your little 
boy to your home, how was he dressed? A. I



don’t know. Q. Did you see him? A. Yes sir, 
but I didn’t pay attention to his clothes? Did you 
look at him? A. I just know it was Bell. Q. Was 
he wet in any way? A. No sir, I didn’t look at 
his shoes. Q. You don’t know? A. I know he 
came in the store and went out of the store. I 
wasn’t watching the time, I was sick and sitting 
by the stove. I know there were boys all around 
there.

Again on page 53 he says:

Q. Who came there (store) with Swain? A. 
When? Q. 29th? A. That day, that evening 
at 2:30? Q. Yes sir? A. I don’t know, he was 
in the store with some other boys.

So it is plainly seen there were boys other 
than Julius McCullom, Grady Swain, Robert Bell 
and the man, Elbert Thomas, in and around the 
store all that afternoon. Who were these boys? 
What were their names and ages? Were they 
white or colored? When did they reach the store? 
How long did they remain there and when did 
they leave?

Mr. B. McCollum testified positively twice that 
they were there and that he saw them in and 
around the store with Robert Bell, Julius McCollum 
and Elbert Thomas between 2 :30 and 4 :00 
o’clock. “ I wasn’t watching the time, I was sick

— 6



and sitting by the stove. I KNOW THERE WERE 
BOYS ALL AROUND THERE” (48) and “ HE 
GRADY (SWAIN) WAS IN THE STORE WITH 
SOME OTHER BOYS” (53). He does not say 
these boys were either Julius McCullom, Robert 
Bell, Grady Swain or Elbert Thomas, then who 
were these “SOME OTHER BOYS” ? WHO WERE 
THE “BOYS ALL AROUND THERE?” If Flowers 
and Ferguson told the truth they did not reach the 
store until just before sundown (according to the 
state’s theory). The name of no other person is 
mentioned as being there except Mr. Cranor who 
is a man upwards of fifty years of age. He does not 
definitely specify the time of day he saw the 
little Swain boy in, around or near the store nor 
what he did further than the purchase of a sand­
wich. The time according to the evidence of this 
witness may have been anywhere from 1 :00 to 5 :00 
o’clock in the afternoon.

Again on page 46 of bill of exceptions Mr. B. 
McCullom says: “ He (Robert Bell) WAS IN AND
OUT ALL THE AFTERNOON, IN AND OUT OF 
THE STORE.” Ransom McCullom testified to the 
same effect several times.

It is true Robert Bell was in and out of the 
store continuously all of the afternoon except when 
at the home of Mrs. McCullom and on horse go­

7—



ing to and from her home to the store. Nothing 
could be plainer nor clearer.

Q. What time did you see Bell that day, this 
boy here? A. I saw him all that day. Q.You saw 
him all that day? A. Yes sir, he was back and 
forth in the store. Q. Did you see him in the
afternoon? A. Yes sir. Q. What time in the 
afternoon? A. I seen him along all that afternoon 
coming backwards and forwards to the store. 
Q. Did you see him at 3:00 o’clock? A. I don’t 
remember whether I saw him about 3:00 o’clock 
or not. Q. About 3:30? A. I saw him about 
4:00 o’clock. Q. Where was he then? A. At 
the store.

Ransom McCullom returned from Hughes with 
freight at 3 :30 o’clock p. m. Upon reaching the 
store Julius McCullom, Robert Bell and Elbert 
Thomas and other boys were in and around the 
store. While unloading the freight sometime after 
reaching the store at the door, Julius McCullom 
came from within, passed the door where the 
freight was being unnloaded to the outside of the 
store. This was the last time Ransom McCullom 
saw him alive. Both B. McCullom and his wife 
were in the store upon the arrival of freight and 
when it was being unloaded at the time Julius left 
the store. Mr. B. McCullom did not see him from

— 8—



that time until his body was removed from the 
bayou. Sometime between 3 :30 and 4 :00 o’clock 
after the return of Ransom McCullom with and 
while unloading the freight Mrs. McCullom pre­
pared and left the store to go home. Julius met 
her somewhere outside of store and wanted to take 
her home in a car (We presume McCullom car).

She testified on page 328 of transcript:

Q. Where was Julius when you left (store) ? 
He came out to the car and brought this little boy 
to me. He didn’t want to go home unless he could 
drive the car, and I didn’t want him to take the 
car and got me a way. Q. Then in about three- 
quarters of an hour this boy (Bell) came up there 
(her home) ? A. Maybe it was an hour until 
that boy came and wanted to do something for me.

So it is seen beyond all peradventure Julius 
was alive and at the car at the store talking to his 
mother sometime between 3:30 and 4:00 o’clock. 
This was the last seen of him by his mother alive.

Mrs. McCullom again says:

Q. Who was with Bell? A. When he first 
come? Q. Yes. A. By himself on a horse, he 
come in and asked me didn’t I have something he 
could do and I let him help me for a while and I 
started to fill the lamp with oil and and I said I

— 9



didn’t have a bit of oil and he said “Let me go 
and get some-” Q. He has been around your house? 
A. Yes sir, he had been at the home during 
Christmas. Q. Very often, he would go out and 
play with Julius? A. Yes sir. (Tr. 327).

Again on page 329 of transcript Mrs. Mc- 
Cullom testified:

Q. What time in the afternoon did this boy 
(Bell) get to your house? A. I am not positive 
about the time. Q. Sometime between 4:00 and 
5:00 o’clock? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you say it was 
about half past four, or three quarters after four 
or what time? A. Yes sir, about that time, it was 
before night, before dark because when he went 
to the store and come back on the horse, the little 
boy was with him; it was kinder dusky dark. He 
brought my coal oil and asked me had Julius come 
and I told him no and for him to go back to the 
store and help work in the store; he helped work 
in the store selling oil and things like that.

This evidence dovetails perfectly with that of 
Ransom McCullom, B. McCullom and Robert Bell. 
We will see what they say.

MR. B. McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

“ It was about sundown when my brother was 
fixing to go home and Robert Bell came back to

— 10—



the store and told me that the boy wasn’t at home. 
I had sent him and the other little boy to the 
house after him, Robert said he wasn’t there and 
he wasn’t at the store and I become alarmed at the 
time, it was getting late and he had never stayed 
off that late before.” (Tr. 34).

Q. He (Bell) was at your home that after­
noon? A. Yes sir, he went up home in the af­
ternoon. Q. When he left the store, who was with 
him? A. He took my other little boy (Holbert) 
on the horse with him up to the house to ask my 
wife if there was anything that she wanted him 
to do. Q. How long did he stay at your house? 
A. He stayed there until sundown. (Tr. 44). 
Q. Did he come back to the store? A. Yes sir, 
he came back and told me Julius wasn’t down 
there. Q. Was Julius at the store when he and 
the other boy was riding the horse and went up 
there? A. No. sir, I thought he went home with 
his mother about three-thirty when she went home 
to get supper. (Tr. 45). Q. Did you see him from 
3:30 or 4:00 o’clock up until he went down to 
your wife’s? A. Not until he came back to the 
store and bought candy, he went up to the home, 
I sent him up there to tell my little boy to come 
back to the store. Q. How long after Julius left 
there was it before this boy (Bell) went with your 
little boy up to your house? A. Something like

— 11—



three-quarters of an hour or an hour. (Tr. 49).

Neither Ransom McCullom nor B. McCullom 
saw the Bell boy nor knew when he left the store 
the first time he went to the house of Mrs. Mc­
Cullom that afternoon. He left the store alone on 
the horse, went to the McCullom home, “ By him­
self on a horse. He came in and asked me didn’t 
I have something he could do, and I let him help 
me for a while and I started to fill the lamps with 
oil, and I said I didn’t have a bit of oil and he said 
let me go and get some” (Tr- 328) and “Yes sir 
about that time (4 :30  or 4 :45) it was before 
night, before dark, because when he went to the 
store and came back on the horse he had the other 
little boy with him, it was kinder dusky dark then. 
He brought my coal oil and asked me had Julius 
come.”

ROBERT BELL TESTIFIED:

Q. How old are you? A. Eighteen— I guess. 
Q. Is your mother living? A. No sir. Q. How 
long has she been dead (Tr. 384) ? A. Ever since 
I was a little bitty boy- Q. Where were you that 
afternoon? A. I was down at the store. Q. You 
got to the store about 11:00 or 11:30 o’clock and 
stayed there until 4:00 or 4:30? A. Yes sir. 
Q. Did you see Elbert Thomas there? A. Yes 
sir, I seen him there. Q. Did you see Julius Mc-

— 12



C’ullom there? A. Yes sir, I seen him. Q. Who 
was with you when you went down from the store 
to Mrs. McCullom’s home? A. Nobody but me 
by myself. Q. Did you go horse back or walk? 
A. I rode my horse. Q. What did you do when 
you went down to Mrs. McCullom’s home? A. I 
went down and asked her did she have anything 
for me to do. Q. Had you been working around 
the house for her? A. Yes sir, a long time. 
Q. When you went back from the house to the 
store, did you ride? A. Yes sir, I rode my horse. 
Q. Was anyone with you? A. Yes sir, Holbert 
McCullom (Tr. 387). Q. You say you left his 
home, Mr. McCullom’s home, and came back down 
to the store with this little child riding the horse 
with you? A. Yes sir. Q. What time did you 
get back to the store? A. Sundown. Q. How long 
did you stay at the store? A. No longer than I 
could go in and draw a gallon of coal oil and get 
back. Q. Had Mrs. McCullom sent you down from 
her home to get the coal oil? A. Yes sir. Q. Did 
you take it back to Mrs. McCullom? A. Yes sir. 
Q. Did the little boy go back with you? A Yes sir. 
Q. When you went back what did you do? A. I 
didn’t do nothing, she told me to take Holbert back 
to the store. Q. Did you take the child back? 
A. Yes sir, I taken him back. Q. You went back 
to the store? A. Yes sir. Q. How long did you

— 13—



remain at the store after you returned the last 
time? A. About a half hour. Q. Then what 
did you do? A. I went to Willie Thomas’ house. 
Q. Where did you go from there? A. Mr. Mc- 
Cullom sent me down to ask them if they had heard 
anything of Julius. Q. He sent you down to see 
about if they knew anything about Julius? A. Yes 
sir, and had they heard him hollering across the 
bayou. Q. Did you go back and report to Mr. 
McCullom? A. Yes sir (Tr. 288-9). Q. Did you 
go to any other place to look for Julius?' A. No 
sir. Q. I believe you stayed at the store that night 
until about 11:00 or 12:00 o’clock? A. I left 
and went back down to the house. Q. McCullom’s 
house? A. Yes sir. Q. How long did you stay? 
A. I was not there but about one hour. Q. Did 
you come back to the store? A. Yes sir. Q. How 
long did you stay? A. I didn’t stay, I left and 
went riding up and down the rock road, me and 
Willie Thomas, on the horse. Q. How long had 
she (Mrs. McCullom) been gone from the store 
before you followed on down on your horse? A- 
I guess about a half hour. Q. About a half-hour? 
A. Yes sir. Q. Did you see Julius or Thomas af­
ter you left the store that first time that afternoon, 
going down to Mrs. McCullom’s? A. No sir, I 
didn’t. (Tr. 390).

- — 14-



RANSOM McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

Q. Did you go and look for Julius before or 
after night? A. It was getting late when I was 
looking for him. Q. Before or after night? 
A. A little before night. Q. That was when you 
detected Julius was gone? A. Yes sir, brother 
had missed him, and he had been looking for him 
and he had been calling him and had some of the 
fellows out looking for him. Q. How long had 
he been calling before you started looking for him? 
A. About a hour. Q. He had been calling him 
an hour before you staffed looking for him. 
A. He had been about that much, hunting for him. 
Q. He had been calling for an hour before you 
started looking for him? A. Yes sir, he had. 
Q. You started looking for him just before dark? 
A. Yes sir (Tr. 322). Q. How long had this boy 
(Bell) been gone on the horse with the little boy 
before you noticed that Julius was gone? A. I 
didn’t know when the little boy left the store on 
the horse. (Tr. 323). Q. Did you see him (Bell) 
in the afternoon? A. Yes sir. Q. What time in 
the afternoon? A. I don’t remember the exact 
hour, I seen him along all that afternoon coming 
backwards and forwards to the store. Q. Did you 
see him about 3:30 o’clock? A. I don’t remember 
whether I seen him about 3 :30 o’clock or not. 
Q. About 3:30? A. I saw him about 4 :00 o’clock.

■15—



Q. Where was Julius at that time? A. I don’t 
know, he was around the house, I suppose. Q. He 
was around the house? A. I reckon he was, I 
didn’t see Julius much that afternoon, he came in 
the store backwards and forwards (Tr. 75). 
Q. Did he (Bell) stay there (Backwards and 
forwards in store) half an hour after you got back 
(from Hughes)? A. I don’t think he did; he 
might have been there fifteen or twenty minutes. 
Q. You are sure that was the time? A. It may 
have been later than that, than four o’clock, I 
don’t remember. Q. He (Bell) had spent nickels 
with you before? A. Yes sir, not many.
Q. Did you pay any particular attention to the 
nickle? A. No sir. Q. You just dropped it in 
the drawer along with other nickles? A. Yes sir. 
Q. Do you know whether his (Bell) clothes were 
wet in any way, did you see them? A. 1 didn’t 
notice about his clothes being wet. Q. You don’t 
know whether his shoes were wet or not? A. No 
sir, I didn’t pay any attention to his shoes (Tr. 81). 
Q. When did he and the little boy leave the store 
on the horse going down to Mrs. McCullom’s resi­
dence? A. I didn’t see them go off, I was in the 
store, I didn’t see them go off (Tr. 77). 
Q. What time of day did he buy it (Candy)? 
A. Well, I suppose it was about four o’clock. 
Q. He was in the store buying candy about four

—  16



o’clock? A. I didn’t says he bought candy. 
Q. He bought something; how much did he pay 
for it? A. I remember him spending a nickel.
(Tr. 79).

MRS. LENA McCULLOM testified:

“ By himself, on a horse. He come in and ask­
ed me didn’t I have something he could do and I 
let him help me for a while and I started to fill the 
lamps with oil and I said that I didn’t have a bit 
of oil and he said let me go and get some”

Q. What time in the afternoon did this boy 
get to your house?

A. I am not positive about the time.

Q. Sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock?

A. “ Yes sir, about that time, it was before 
dark because when he went to the store and come 
back on the horse and he had the other little boy 
with him; it was kinder dusky dark. He brought 
my coal oil and asked had Julius come and I told 
him no and for him to go back to the store and 
help work in the store; he helped work in the 
store some, selling oil and things like that.” 
(Tr. 329).

So it is conclusively and beyond all perad- 
venture as clearly and plainly seen as a bright and 
sunny midday that the Bell boy, Julius, Elbert

■17—



Thomas and other boys were at the store on the 
return of Ransom McCullom with freight, Mr. and 
Mrs. McCullom and the smaller McCullom children 
were also at the store, soon thereafter Julius left 
the store, sometime after Julius left the store Mrs. 
McCullom prepared to return to her home, Julius 
met her somewhere outside but near the store 
having one of the younger McCullom children with 
him and wanted to take his mother home in a car, 
she for some reason, probably afraid for him to 
drive the car, declined to return to her home in 
car with him so returned in car of Mr. Davenson, 
soon thereafter the Bell boy alone on the horse 
followed her to her home on horse, alighted, went 
into the house, asked her if she had something he 
could do and she let him help her for a while; 
she prepared to fill the lamps but had no oil, she 
then directed that he return to the store for the 
oil which he did riding the same horse, filled the 
oil can, B. McCullom directed that he tell Julius 
to come to the store, he returned to the house of 
Mrs. McCullom on same horse with little H'olbert 
McCullom riding behind him and asked Mrs. Mc­
Cullom was Julius at home, being told he was not 
Mrs. McCullom sent him back to the store direct­
ing him to tell Mr. McCullom Julius was not at 
home.

Robert Bell and both Ransom and B. Mc-

18—



Cullom testified that he reached the store at sun­
down on the second trip to the store, therefore it 
is clearly revealed from 4:00 o’clock to 5:03 or 
one hour and three minutes this boy made two trips 
to the home of Mrs. McCullom, helped her for a 
while with her chores in and around her home, 
drawn the oil and purchased the candy or some­
thing for a nickel and according to the theoi’y of 
the state done all of those wonderful, marvelous, 
impossible, unnatural and unbelievable things em­
braced in the confessions which is reprehensible 
and inconsistent to all intelligent human beings.

It will be borne in mind this boy was so 
ignorant he did not know his age, made three trips 
to the home and was in the presence of Mrs. Mc­
Cullom and her children three times, two in the 
afternoon during one of which he helped her for 
a while with her work in and around her home, 
and one that night for one hour, yet she nor B. 
nor Ransom McCullom detected his shoes or clothes 
were wet, muddy, ruffled or torn, but the state 
contends that sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 
o’clock that afternoon this boy, Grady, Julius and 
Thomas were scuffling in a 14-foot boat with 6 
inches of water in it.

If any credibility can be attached to the evi­
dence of Mrs. McCullom or B. McCullom or Ran­

— 19



som McCullom, Julius was alive and at the car 
with his mother at 4:00 o’clock that afternoon just 
as she was leaving the store for her home. If 
Robert Bell left wet or muddy tracks on the floors, 
steps or galleries they said nothing about it. If 
he was excited or conveyed any emotion or sus­
picion they say nothing about it, nevertheless each 
and all remembered everything he did or said. If 
he was excited, depressed or conveyed an emotion 
or suspicion they did not say so, however the state 
contends he had only a few minutes before assisted 
in executing one of the boldest, most brazen, dia­
bolical, dastardly and damnable crimes in murder­
ing their son.

Did this boy’s actions comport with that of a 
criminal who had just robbed and murdered an 
innocent boy? We unhesitatingly say no. There 
is not the remotest evidence to show his actions, 
demeanor, conduct or looks were different from 
what they always were.

We have no doubt after a more careful exam­
ination of the record about the time the little Swain 
boy left the store was near 2:00 o’clock and 
that he returned home that afternoon as testified 
by him.

MR. B. McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

Q. When did you first see Swain that day?

— 20—



A. He was talking to Bell in the store and he got 
a sandwich at the counter. Q. What time of day 
would you say it was? A. I couldn’t say, I haven’t 
a time piece, I don’t carry a watch. Q. About 
what time was it? A. It was in the afternoon. 
Q. About what time in the afternoon? A. I think 
it was about 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock. Q. When did 
you next see him? A. I didn’t see him any more 
until they got him and had him under arrest and 
was questioning him. (Tr. 52) (At inquest).

RANSOM McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

Q. When did you first see the Swain boy that 
day? A. I seen him about one o’clock and two 
o’clock, all the time before I went to Hughes; I 
don’t remember whether I seen him after I got 
back from Hughes or not, I don’t think I seen him 
any more (Tr. 80). Q. What time of day did they 
say they saw them (Julius, Elbert and Grady) go­
ing down towards the bayou? A. They didn’t tell 
me what time, they said that evening, he said I seen 
them this evening. Q. You don’t know whether they 
went down there before you got back from Hughes 
or afterwards? A. Yes sir, I seen Julius when I 
got back from Hughes. Q. But they might have 
been down there before you came back, the chil­
dren were playing? A. They could have. (Tr. 83).

— 21



M R S . L E N A  M c C U L L O M  T E S T I F I E D :

Q. Did you see this little negro here during 
the afternoon at all (Meaning Grady Swain)? 
A. I am not sure whether I did or not. (Tr. 330).

JOHN PAYNE TESTIFIED:

Q. Do you know this boy here, Swain? 
A. Yes sir. Q. How long have you known him? 
A. About three years. Q. Did you see this boy 
anywhere that day, the day of the drowning of 
the McCullom boy (Tr. 331) ? A. I seen him that 
evening. Q. Where abouts? A. He come to my 
house. Q. What time did you see him? A. He 
was at my house about three-thirty as near as I can 
get at it, that evening. Q. How long did he stay 
there? A. Something like five or ten minutes. 
Q. Where did he go then. A. Home. (Tr. 332). 
Q. Did you see him any more that afternoon? 
A. I seen him that night. Q. How far is it from 
your house to the McCullom store? A. They tell 
me it is a mile from my house to the McCullom store. 
(Tr. 333). Q. You stated that he stopped at your 
house about five or ten minutes. A. Yes sir, about 
five or ten minutes where I was cutting wood. 
(Tr. 335).

SHELLEY BURKE TESTIFIED:

In December, 1927, he lived about 250 yards

2 2



of Robert Swain, knew Grady Swain and saw him 
that day on date of drowning one mile of the 
McCullom store.

Q. What time did you see him? A. About 
2:30  or 3 :00 o’clock. A. Where did you see him? 
A. He passed my house. Q. Which way was he 
going. A. Going towards John Payne’s? 0. Was 
that also towards his home? A. Yes sir. Q. How 
close were you to him? A. Pretty close, about 
twenty-five or thirty feet. (Tr. 339).

ROBERT SWAIN TESTIFIED:

He started to the McCullom store about 3:00  
o’clock and met Grady in road going home, he 
continued to the store, purchased some tobacco and 
left the store about dark returning home and found 
Grady at home. (Tr. 342).

Mrs. McCullom does not remember seeing the 
little Swain boy at all that afternoon, Ransom Mc­
Cullom did not see him after 2 :00 o’clock which 
was about the time he left the store for Hughes 
for freight and B. McCullom who sold him the 
sandwich had no time piece, last saw him as he 
thinks about 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock. Grady says 
he left the store for his home about 1 :30 o’clock. 
John Payne who lived between the home of 
Robert Swain and the McCullom store and 400 
yards of the Robert Swain home and had known

■23—



the boy for three years says Grady passed his 
home going to his home at about 3:30. Shelley 
Burke who lived between Swain’s home and the 
store and within 250 yards of Robert Swain’s 
home says the boy passed his house going towards 
his home about 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock and Robert 
Swain says he went to the store that afternoon and 
passed Grady between his home and the store go­
ing towards his home about 3 :00 o'clock, hence 
we have in addition to Grady three witnesses all 
of whom knew the boy positively testifying the boy 
went home prior to the time Julius was at the store 
and car talking to his mother on the return of 
Ransom McCullom from Hughes with freight at 
3:30 o’clock and he was not at the store nor bayou 
at the time Julius and Thomas drowned. Mrs. 
McCullom had no recollection of seeing him at any 
time that afternoon. Ransom McCullom did not 
see him after 2:00 o’clock yet he was in and 
around the store after his return with freight from 
Hughes the remainder of evening and B. Mc­
Cullom, who had no timepiece, by estimation did 
not see him after 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock and he was 
also continuously at the store balance of after­
noon. Where was Julius all of this time?

Again these boys and other boys were playing 
in road in front of store that afternoon and the

— 24—



party who claims to have seen Julius and Thomas 
and other parties playing in road and beyond the 
wire fence on south side of road and reported same 
to Ransom McCullom may have seen them as early 
as 1 :00 o’clock. We have nothing to contradict 
the evidence of Grady, Robert Swain, Shelley Burke 
and John Payne, all of whom swore that Grady 
was at home at the time of the accidental drown­
ing, except the indefinite and uncertain testimony 
of Raymond Ferguson and Henry Flowers and if 
the testimony of these two parties is true that they 
saw Julius, Elbert and the Swain boy go under 
the wire fence and into the pasture about sun­
down, basing the time upon how long it would 
take Ferguson to drive one and one-half mile the 
distance from the store to and reach his home and 
ungear his team before night, then beyond all 
conjecture and a shadow of doubt the Bell boy was 
either at the home of Mrs. McCullom or on the 
way to or from there.

MR. B. McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

“ It was about sundown when my brother was 
fixing to go home and Robert Bell come back to the 
(On his return from home on second trip) and told 
me that the boy wasn’t at home. I had sent him 
and the other (Holbert) little boy (This little boy 
was not with the Bell boy on his first trip to the

25—



McCollum home) to the house after him (Julius). 
(Tr. 34).

Q. How long did he stay at your house? 
A. Stayed there until sundown. (Second trip to 
home). (Tr. 44).

RANSOM McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

Q. Did you go and look for Julius before or 
after night? A. It was getting late when we was 
looking for him. Q. Before or after night. 
A. A little before night. Q. That was when you 
detected that Julius was gone? A. Yes sir, brother 
missed him, and he had been looking for him and 
he had been calling him and had some other fel­
lows out looking for him? Q. How long had he 
been calling before you started looking for him? 
A. About an hour. Q. He had been calling for 
an hour before you started looking for him? 
A. Yes sir. Q. You started looking for him be­
fore dark? A. Yes sir. (Tr. 322).

MRS. LENA McCULLOM TESTIFIED.

Q. What time in the afternoon did this boy 
(Bell) get to your house? A. I am not positive 
about the time. Q. Sometime between 4:00 and 
5:00 o’clock? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you say it 
was about half past four, or three quarters of four 
or what time? A. Yes sir, about that time, it

— 26—



was before night, before dark because when he 
went to the store and come back on the horse, the 
other little boy (Holbert) was with him (This was 
the second trip); it was kinder dusky dark; he 
brought my coal oil and asked me has Julius come 
and I told him no and for him to go back to the 
store and help in the store, he helped work in the 
store selling oil and things like that (Tr. 329). 
Q. Who was with Bell? A. Well, he come up to
my house (on first trip) on a horse by himself the
first time. Q. What time of the afternoon was 
that? A. It was, I went home between 3:30 and 
4:00 o’clock, I reckon it was about three-quarters 
of an hour or maybe an hour when he come up 
there (Tr. 327). Q. Who was with him?
A. When he first come. Q. Yes. A. By himself
on a horse, he come in and asked me didn’t I have 
something he could do and I LET HIM HELP ME 
FOR A WHILE AND STARTED TO FILL THE 
LAMPS WITH OIL AND I SAID I DIDN’T HAVE 
A BIT OF OIL AND HE SAID LET ME GO AND 
GET SOME. (Tr. 328).

Robert Bell testified to the same effect in 
every respect except he stated he left the store about 
one-half hour after Mrs. McCullom did and alone 
followed her home on the horse.

The two negroes, Ferguson and Flowers, left 
home which was one-half mile of the store, “ Over

■27—



in the evening” in a loaded wagon, reached the 
store sometime, “ Over in the evening,”  remained 
there 25 or 30 minutes and then proceeded, “ Over 
in the evening” towards and reached home of 
Ferguson between sundown and dark, but there 
is nothing to disclose whether they stopped on way 
after leaving the storre. It appears Ferguson was 
driving and had charge of the wagon and team. 
Neither had an idea nor conception what time they 
were at the store further than it was sometime 
“ Over in the evening” between 1 :00 and 5 :00 
o’clock; neither could tell how Grady, Julius or 
Thomas was dressed, whether all or any one was 
bareheaded or had hats or caps on or whether they 
had on leather or gum boots or shoes or with or 
without coats; claimed Grady hollered at one of 
them as he was getting upon wagon but does not 
remember nor could he tell what he said.

Grady says he left the store about 1 :30 o’clock. 
It is our conclusion that if these two parties saw him 
go under the fence or into the pasture (distance 
not given) it was prior to 1 :30 o’clock or it is 
probable he did not leave the store before 2 :00 or 
2 :30 o’clock. It was only one-half mile from 
where Ferguson and Flowers started to the store. 
They could have driven this distance easily in one- 
half hour. None of the McCulloms say anything 
about either Flowers or Ferguson being at the

— 28— -



store. It is our belief that these negroes did not see 
these boys nor Thomas at all.

Joe Cox’s evidence is very uncertain and vague 
as to the identity of the person who passed his 
house at dark that night. “ We had just gotten un­
loaded and had turned two of my dogs (How many 
additional cur dogs he owned we do not know) 
loose that commenced barking and SOMEBODY 
HOLLERED and my daughter and myself stepped 
to the door and he said “ DON’T LET THE DOGS 
BITE ME” and I said “ GO ON, THE DOGS AIN’T 
GOING TO BOTHER YOU.” This occurred after 
dark. He admits he did not know who the boy 
was prior to that, I DIDN’T KNOW HIM, I DIDN’T 
KNOW THERE WAS A GRADY SWAIN IN THE 
WORLD.

Q. How do you know that was Grady?

A. I saw him the next morning after they 
brought him to the store. It was dark when the 
party passed.

While it is true he testified it was a Swain yet 
there may be many other Swains. He concedes 
he did not know the boy until the following morn­
ing when he was under arrest and at the store. He 
does not describe the party whom he claimed 
passed as to his size, color, dress, age, voice 
nor did he say anything the previous night about

— 29—



Grady having passed his house nor the following 
morning. He was at the store both the night be­
fore and the following morning yet he is as quiet 
as a church mouse about Grady passing his home. 
Another salient circumstance is he did not have his 
daughter in court to testify.

The learned Assistant Attorney General on 
page 6 says, “ Mrs. McCullom, the mother of Julius 
McCullom, testified that the boy wore two pairs 
of socks the day he was drowned, one pair of men’s 
socks over a pair of girl’s socks” which is incorrect.

MRS. McCULLOM TESTIFIED:

Q. Julius stayed at your home the night be­
fore? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you see him dress the 
next morning? A. No sir, I didn’t see him dress? 
Q. Do you know whether he had on stockings or 
socks? A. He generally wore socks. Q. Do you 
know which he had on that day? A. The socks 
he pulled off that night were men’s, little men’s 
socks. He had on a pair of girl’s socks under them, 
he had two pairs and they were wet. Q. That 
was the night before? A. Yes sir. Q. Do you 
know what he had on the day he was drowned? 
A. No sir, I don’t. Q. You don’t know what kind 
of socks he had on? A. No sir, I sure don’t.

Mrs. McCullom only stated that the socks 
which were claimed to have been found at bayou

— 30



LOOKED LIKE THE SOCKS JULIUS WORE.
(Tr. 324).

While there has been some hearsay evidence 
relative to socks, on page 42 B. McCullom stated 
he did not know whether Julius had on socks, that 
he may have had on boots and no socks, he did not 
see him dress so did not know what he had on. On 
page 66 Ransom McCullom says, when he found 
the body but found no socks. On page 316 he testi­
fied Press Jackson found some socks but does not 
say when nor where nor was he present when they 
were found nor did he see them. On page 317 he 
testified further that he did not know whether 
Julius had on stockings or socks as he neither saw 
nor found any. On page 318 he testified he did 
not know whether the socks claimed to have been 
found were Julius’. On page 78 this same witness 
says he knew nothing about socks nor safety pins. 
On page 79 the same witness says Mr. Pryor found 
some socks but does not know where, when, nor 
that they belonged to Julius. He again says Mr. 
Ed. Clinton found socks somewhere or sometime 
but does not know whether these belonged to Julius.

The same criticism may be made as to both 
safety pins and supporters. Not a witness testified 
that either the safety pin or supporter found on the 
underclothing of Julius corresponded to those found

— 3 1 —



on his clothes at home. No one testified that they 
were of the same make, brand, description, age, 
whether silver or brass, bright or rusty nor which 
the larger or smaller.

Again on page 6 another error is committed by 
the learned Assistant Attorney General pertaining 
to the testimony of Mrs. McCullom, “ When Robert 
Bell first come to the house he asked if Julius had 
come home yet.”

On the first trip he asked Mrs. McCullom, 
“DIDN’T I HAVE SOMETHING HE COULD DO 
AND I LET HIM HELP ME FOR A WHILE, etc.”

He said nothing about Julius on his first trip 
to the house. She sent him back to store for the oil 
and after he had gotten the oil Mr. McCullom sent 
him and little Hlobert, who had been at the store 
all of time since his mother had gone home, back 
to house to tell Julius to come to the store; Robert 
returned, inquired of Mrs. McCullom for Julius and 
she, finding he was not at store nor at home, sent 
Robert back to the store the second time to notify 
his father that he was not at home and to help in 
store. (Tr. 329).

MR. McCULLOM TESTIFIED ON THIS 
POINT:

“ He come in the store and bought some candy

— 32



and then he went out, my little boy came in and 
when he did he came in and they went to the house 
together.”

Q. You think he bought the candy about what 
time? A. 4:30 or 5:00 o’clock, before he went 
to the house to see about Julius to have him to come 
back to the store. I thought that Julius went 
to the house with his mother. (Tr. 61).

The Bell boy went alone on the first trip to the 
house of Mrs. McCullom, assisted her a while with 
her work in and around the house, returned to the 
store with oil ■ can, got the oil and purchased the 
candy or something paying therefor a nickel; he 
and little Holbert then started to return to the Mc­
Cullom home on same horse, at which juncture B. 
McCullom told him to tell Julius to come to the 
store. This was the second trip of the Bell boy to 
the home of Mrs. McCullom-

On page 7 of brief of appellee is the statement 
that, they (Hargraves, B. McCullom and Fietz) 
reached Little Rock about five o’clock on Sunday. 
That the boys were brought into the office by some 
trusties. Mr. Hargraves asked the boys all the 
questions. The boys were not scared and they talk­
ed freely. The last sentence, “The boys were not 
scared and talked freely” is incorrect.

You may search the testimony of Mr. Fietz

— 33—



from inception to conclusion with the greatest 
minuteness and you will find he stated nothing 
which would even indicate they were not scared or 
that they talked freely. Both boys testified time 
after time they were scared and were afraid if they 
did not give the statements wanted they would 
again be beaten by Mr. Todhunter who was sitting 
by with his bull whip and in a few feet of them in 
the same room.

If Mr. Hargreves, who was in the employ of 
Mr. B. McCullom who paid his fee, had had any 
inclination to be fair and just to these illiterate, 
benighted and helpless boys both of whom were 
in the second grade in school, one only in his 14th 
year and the other guessing he was in his 18th 
year, and incarcerated in a dark and bleak dungeon 
with no one to' converse with and alone with his 
almost blank mind for upwards of the previous 60 
long, dreary and weary days and nights except 
when removed by the warden to be by him “ Sweat­
ed Down” and given the “ Third Degree” trying to 
pull from him a confession, both of whom had been 
unnmercifully and inhumanely whipped by this 
man who was sitting near them in the same room 
in the presence of the other who had traveled sev­
eral times from Greasy Corner to Little Rock a 
distance of 130' miles to be present, encourage, 
advise and see that the whippings were well

— 34—



and properly done to a “ Queen’s Taste.” Why 
did he have McCullom in the room? Why have 
Todhunter in the room? Why take the confessions 
during the night? A wayfaring man even though a 
fool would know it was to intimidate, scare and 
frighten the poor boys. It will be recalled that B. 
McCullom was present every time the BellT)oy was 
whipped and no time did he ask mercy for him or 
intercede on his behalf, but on the other hand he 
was standing by, aiding, encouraging and possibly 
assisting in the whippings. These boys were not 
told they would not be whipped nor that they would 
not be harmed. McCullom was present. Todhun­
ter was present and the long black snake scourge 
was present but neither mother nor father of boys 
were present yet Hargraves and McCullom knew 
they lived near Greasey Corner and they were go­
ing to Little Rock to procure the “ Free and Volun­
tary Confessions.” No one claims they spoke a 
kind or pleasant word to these boys. It is not claim­
ed that “ Caiaphas” offered prayer or read a chapter 
from his Talmud or that Worthy Nero “ Tuned his 
fiddle” or that the “ Chief Scribe” offered his socks 
to the boys, or the man with sagacity offered to 
purchase them a “ Tin Lizzie.”

We readily perceive when these two boys were 
brought into the office by the most hardened and 
desperate criminals who had to be confined in the



walls on account of their wanton and desperate 
characters and were confronted by Mr. Todhunter 
and Mr. McCullom they naturally thought they 
would be whipped and beaten again, especially the 
Bell boy as he had been whipped every time Mc­
Cullom had been present. No one told them they 
would not be beaten. No one told them they
would not be whipped. No one told them they
would not be lacerated. No one told them they
would protect them. No one told them they were
their friends. When the boys entered the room and 
were confronted by these men their hearts sank 
and they no doubt shivered as an Aspen leaf. They 
thought their day of Crucifixion had come. Neither 
knew Hargraves nor Fietz nor that they were not 
officers from Forrest City and that they too would 
whip and beat them. They were not told by any 
one who Hargraves and Fietz were. Neither Har­
graves nor Fietz told the boys who they were nor 
where they were from nor that they would not 
whip and beat them.

Mr. Fietz was a very talkative witness; he was 
so anxious to testify as to what the ppor boys said 
but it is noted he did not chirp directly, indirectly 
nor inferentially, that in this room in the presence 
of four white men this Bell boy was commanded 
to and did remove every vestige of clothing and 
expose himself in this nude condition to their in­

— 36—



sinuating gaze. Did Todhunter mention this fact? 
No. Why? Neither did he deny it. McCullom did 
not mention this- Why? Nor did he deny it. Fietz 
did not mention this. Why? Nor did he deny it. 
None of them denied or referred to this indecent, 
repulsive and nauseating act nor did any one of 
them mention or deny that the Bell boy was forced 
to stand in the corner of the room during the en­
tire time these “ Free and Voluntary” confessions 
were being made. Neither Todhunter nor McCul­
lom mentioned nor denied that a former written 
confession had been twisted out of these two boys 
which did not suit their wishes hence was destroy­
ed. Neither Todhunter nor McCullom denied that 
the trusties who conducted the boys into this room 
told them to make the same statements they had 
made to Todhunter- Why was it so urgent to take 
these statements that they must be taken on Sun­
day after a 150 mile trip from Memphis? Why 
was it necessary for McCullom to employ and pay 
a typist from Memphis? Why not secure the serv­
ices of one who lived in Little Rock?

Surrounded as these boys were and taking in­
to consideration their ages, education, experience, 
intelligence, advantages, raised in cotton and corn 
fields, negro boys in hands of white officers, in 
the night time, curtain pulled down, door barred, 
fires burning, one just brought from a lonely, dark

— 37-



and bleak cell or dungeon where he had continu­
ously been confined for upwards of 60 long, weary 
and lonely days and nights, one taken from the 
Bull pen, both taken in the night time by the most 
dangerous and dare-devil convicts and into the 
presence of the 200-pound Hercules who had sio 
recently whipped and beaten the Bell boy on three 
several occasions with the four and a half feet by 
three and a half inches blacksnake scourge and 
who had time after time “ Sweated him Down” and 
“ Given him the Third Degree” and “ Boll Weeviled 
him” and who had gotten “ One Thousand Confes­
sions” out of hundreds of human beings for the 
purpose of and who did testify against these same 
unfortunate human beings some no doubt sent to 
the electric chair and some to the gallows. These 
boys undobtedly quailed before this man, whose 
heart was seemingly made of stone. We cannot 
picture in our minds scenes more brutal even in 
the Dark Ages. The man whose duty it was to pro­
tect these unsophisticated boys is the man who 
treated them worse than an ordinary man would 
treat brutes. A man who on one occasion whipped 
this boy on his bare back until he was exhausted 
then taking his foot and kicking him and shoving 
him around while he rested and then again whip­
ping him with the same strap. Beating him over 
the head thus raising on his head and forehead

38—



knots as large as hen eggs which were exhibited in 
court during the trial and who did not deny it. 
They were there and were seen. His back and sides 
so bruised he could neither lie on back nor sides.

Can anyone even persuade himself to believe 
these boys in the presence of this man would be 
free and independent while locked in the room with 
him at time of confessions and with the man who 
had stood by and seen the mistreatment with sanc­
tion and approval?

Mr. Hargraves did not testify, hence the As­
sistant Attorney General is again in error.

While it is true the confessions conclude, “ I 
make this statement freely and voluntary without 
any threat of violence or promise of immunity or 
reward, because it is the truth, and after I was 
advised it would be used in evidence in court and 
I make it in the presence of Mr. Todhunter, Mr. 
B. McCullom, Mr. S. S. Hargraves and Marcus 
Fietz”  and “ I make this statement in the presence 
of Robert Bell, Mr. Todhunter, Mr. B. McCullom, 
Mr. S. S. Hargraves and Marcus Fietz, and I make 
it of my own free will, without any threats of viol­
ence, promise of remuneration, and I make said 
statements because they are the truth and I have 
been advised that they may be used in court as 
evidence” could anyone with even common appre­

— 39—



hension or reason persuade himself to believe that 
a 14-year-old negro boy in the second grade in 
school had the remotest conception what this lang­
uage meant?

It is easily seen by the testimony of the Bell 
boy he is dull.

Neither had the remotest nor no more idea or 
conception what this language meant than an 
O’possum had of a telephone message. What does 
a second grade 14-year-old country (colored boy 
know about evidence used against him in court or 
promise of reward, or remuneration, or of my own 
free will, or promise of immunity.

Both boys testified many times that they did 
not know what the statements were and that they 
were scared. One of them was asked if he made 
and signed the statement and his answer was, 
“ Yes sir, but I didn’t know what I was doing, I 
didn’t know what sort of statement it was, they 
said “Sign this here,” what it was I didn’t know.” 
He was then asked if Mr. Fietz read the statement 
to him and his answer was, “ Yes sir, but I didn’t 
know what signing meant” and “ I had told them 
I wasn’t guilty and they had whipped me and made 
me guilty and I was innocent.”

Yes, the appellee is correct in saying there was 
some evidence to the effect that Campbell whipped

_ 40—



the little Swain boy in Forrest City jail and proof 
that warden, Todhunter, “ Had whipped both boys” 
in the walls. We presume the word “ some” is used 
ironically. If the gentleman who prepared the 
Brief for appellee had applied to his jaw the bat­
tering ram ham hands of the sheriff and buckle 
end of the three and a half feet by three inches 
hamestring to his bare back he would conclude he 
had gotten “ SOME WHIPPING” and further pre­
sume if a man of 200 pounds, middle aged, active 
and strength of an Ajax applied the four and a 
half feet long by three and a half inches wide No. 
One cowhide scourge to his naked back while ly­
ing on concrete floor face downward leaving such 
lacerations and bruises on his back and sides he 
could neither lie on sides nor back and knots on 
his head as large as large marbles he would also 
conclude there “ SHOW IS SOME PROOF I WAS 
WHIPPED.”

We copiously copied from the testimony of 
both Campbell and Todhunter and boys and dis­
closed in our original brief quite fully the mis­
treatment of both boys and how the forced and 
scared confessions were gotten. We challenge 
anyone after a careful and minute search and re­
search of the whole record to show where either 
of the boys were impudent, unruly or did or said 
anything to provoke the officers causing them to 
whip or mistreat either boy.

— 41—



This statement in brief for appellee, “ The 
Swain boy had already admitted to the sheriff that 
he was connected with the drowning of the two 
boys and had first told him he and Elbert Thomas 
had drowned Julius” is also untrue.

After he had been in the hands and closeted 
by McDougal, chief of police of Forrest City, who 
“ Did not want him bleeding in jail,” Joe Campbell, 
deputy sheriff under his father, and John I. Jones, 
another deputy sheriff,, had the boy out in ante­
room or Bull Pen of jail questioning and cross­
questioning him also in the night time, and telling 
him he knew how the boy was drowned and 
Thomas did it and the sheriff had whipped him to 
make him know something about Thomas drown­
ing Julius, and after he had heard the threats and 
seen the infuriated populace at Greasy Corner 
against the life of Thomas and saw the great ex­
citement, then it was, and not until then, he stated 
that he stood on a bridge across the bayou at a 
distance of about 200 yards and saw Thomas drown 
Julius. Grady did not say he had anything to do 
with the drowning but only he saw Thomas do it, 
and then not until he had been beaten by Campbell 
with both hand and hamestring. The boy testified 
to these facts which is not denied by anyone.

It will be recalled that just as soon as the 
sheriff landed in Forrest City and entered the jail

4 2 —



the whipping begun and was continuous there­
after.

We fully explained on pages 112 and 113 of 
original brief that Sheriff Campbell was the one 
who upon his return from Hot Springs to Forrest 
City on the evening after the arrest of the boys in 
the forenoon injected into this case the hue and 
cry “ Money and Robbery.” Neither money nor 
robbery to this point had been mentioned nor even 
thought of. Both originated in the fertile and 
productive mind of the slapping, strapping and law 
enforcer sheriff. This chastisement occurred on 
same day of arrest of boys and little Swain was 
both slapped and strapped in the presence of the 
Bell boy. The succeeding day the little Swain boy 
was hand-cuffed in the presence of Bell and rushed 
post haste to Brinkley, placed in the calaboose to 
avoid being lynched or burned by the infuriated 
populace which discloses the excitement prevailing 
at Greasy Corner from where both boys had just 
come. Campbell on page 26 of transcript testified, 
“ I think it will be shown that he (Grady) had al­
ready confessed.” He had not confessed to any­
one at Greasy Corner, nor to officers who arrest­
ed, brought and placed him in jail, nor anyone at 
inquest, nor to no one at the jail nor to none of the 
McC'ulloms nor to Jones nor to McDougal nor to 
Deputy Sheriff Joe Cambell, then to whom did he

— 43—



confess? No witness was produced to disclose con­
fession and the little Swain boy positively and def­
initely testified that he did not make any kind of 
confession until after Campbell had whipped him, 
nor did he mention the name of Thomas in connec­
tion with accidental drowning.

On page 96 of original brief in as terse statement 
as conveniently consistent we discussed Ransom 
McCullom’s trip to the home of Robert Swain and 
statement claimed by him to have been made by 
the little Swain boy and showed its unreasonable­
ness in that a man during a cold wintry night on 
the outside of a house— distance not given— could 
hear a small boy in bed under cover make such a 
statement. Heard this and nothing more nor less.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that he was sitting around 
the store there where Julius was and he wasn’t 
with Julius any more than he was with the other 
boys?

A. I didn’t see him out talking to Julius, no 
sir, if he did I didn’t pay any attention to it, he had 
been around the store. (Tr. 85).

Appellee on page 21 of Brief for Appellee 
states, “ The testimony of Ransom McCullom is 
that there was a struggle in the boat where the 
boys’ bodies were found.”

4 4



This is an error. Ransom MeCullom testified 
“ The bank sloped away out” and “ Where the wa­
ter was at that time, the back water was up, and 
it was a gradual slope up, you know.” (Tr. 70-71).

“ The boat was muddy, it was all muddy except 
the front end and it was dry, it looked like it hadn’t 
been pushed out in the water but the back end had 
been pushed plumb' under the water, nearly, and 
there was water plumb over it and the back. There 
was a big muddy track in the seat. There was one 
plank that went across the boat and that was a 
big muddy track in the middle of it. The boat 
was muddy nearly all over and it was wet all 
over.” (Tr. 86).

This is the nearest to a struggle referred to by 
this witness. No other witness testified on this 
point. The second bank was sloping. He figured 
about two and a half feet of boat was out of water. 
There were tracks in front of boat and in path lead­
ing from store over red mud in pasture to boat. 
The mud on plank across boat was same color as 
in pasture. Tracks on seat looked to have been 
made by gum boots. The greater the slope the 
more boat out of water.

The testimony of this witness is in accord with 
the theory of defense, “ It was all muddy except 
the front end and it was dry” and “ It looked like

— 45—



it had been pushed in the water but the back end 
had been pushed under the water, nearly.” 
Thomas was standing on the plank or seat, made 
the big muddy tracks, Julius was in front end of 
boat with paddle, attempted to push the boat off 
bank with paddle, through a mishap probably 
stepped on one side of boat or one of them moved, 
Thomas was thrown out into water, Julius removed 
his boots, on account of excitement dropped or 
threw them into water, went to the assistance of 
Thomas who being so large Julius could not con­
trol him nor release himself from his drowning 
grasp, both were drowned.

Dragging the bayou with barbed wire sep­
arated both boots and bodies.

The tracks through pasture and in front of 
boat were those of Julius and Thomas. There were 
no tracks leaving the bayou. How did defendants 
return? What become of their tracks when going 
to or returning from bayou?

This witness says, “ I walked back in the boat 
two or three times before I ever pushed it off.”  
(Tr- 87). Why did he do this? To throw the 
weight to the back end and loosen front end from 
mud.

This witness admits himself he thought when 
he went to the bayou Julius had fallen out of boat



into the water. There is not the slightest proof the 
boat had been moved. It was where it had been 
for a long time. There is absolutely no proof when 
it had been used last. This boat may not have 
been used in six months. Witness does not say the 
mud on boat was wet or fresh. That on seat made 
by big feet both muddy and fresh. Witness does 
not say water in boat was clear or muddy.

There is no proof except confessions defendants 
even knew the boat was there. Absolutely no 
proof either knew traps were across bayou or a 
tra£ in neighborhood.

Appellee again on page 21 says, “ The boat 
which Julius McCullom and Elbert Thomas had 
been using at the bayou in setting out their traps 
was pulled up considerable distance on the bank.”

There is not a scintilla of evidence to sub­
stantiate this statement. Not a witness testified 
Julius and Elbert had ever used the boat going to 
or from their traps, provided they even owned a 
trap, or that either ever used the boat at all at any 
time. The traps were presumed to be somewhere 
across the bayou, the location not given. No one 
had seen the traps nor did anyone even know nor 
is there any proof that there were traps nor is there 
a particle of evidence that either ever used the 
boat. All of the evidence pertaining to the traps 
is mere hearsay evidence.

4 7 —



Ransom McCullom “ Figured” the boat was 
two and a half feet out of the water. Can any 
possible reason be given why these two defendants 
would pull the boat “ Up considerable distance on 
the bank.” What could have been their motive or 
reason. Why pull it, “ Up a considerable distance?” 
No evidence showing tracks in mud or dry land to 
or leading from boat.

Again on same page, “ The boy’s father testi­
fied he had been carrying money in his boots and 
that he found some money stuck in his leather boots 
which the boy had left at home the day he was 
drowned.”

LET US SEE WHAT THE FATHER SAYS:

Q. Do you know whether your little boy had 
any money on him? A. He had been working at 
the store, I never searched his pockets to see what 
he had, he usually carried money in his pocket. 
Q. Did he every carry anything in his pockets? 
(Tr. 36).

MR. LANIER: I object to that, Mr. Smith
has suggested every answer this man makes.

THE COURT: Avoid leading questions as
much as you can.

Q. How did he carry his money? A. He 
had been using so much money out of the store, so 
a little boy told me how much he spent at school—

— 48—



MR. LANIER: I object to what somebody
told him.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Just tell what you know. (Witness continues) 
He carried money in his shoes, his little brother 
told me he carried it in his shoes when he went to 
school.

MR. LANIER: I object.

(Witness continues) We found some money 
in his leather boots that he pulled off that day 
when he changed for his rubber boots and went to 
the bayou. Me and my wife found some money in 
his boots, some nickels stuck in them and we were 
moving his boots that day some nickels dropped out. 
(Tr. 37).

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. McCULLOM:

Q. Do you know whether this boy knew that 
your boy had any money, of your own personal 
knowledge? A. I think he did. Q. Do you know; 
it is not a question of what you think? A. He 
worked in the store. Q. I am not asking 
you that question, I asked you did you know 
whether your boy had money on the 29th day of 
December? A. My boy gave this boy a quarter 
to let him ride his horse. Q. You don’t know? 
A. No sir, I don’t know. Q. Do you know

— 49—



whether your little boy got any money out of the 
store? A. He worked in the store. Q. I know 
he worked in the store. A. I didn’t watch the 
cash register. Q. You don’t know whether he had 
any money when he was drowned, of your own 
personal knowledge? A. No sir, I don’t. Q. Do 
you know whether he took any money out of the 
store? A. No sir, I don’t know, I didn’t check 
behind him. Q. He may have gone down to the 
bayou absolutely without a copper cent in his 
pockets? A. He could have. Q. You didn’t see 
him when he left with any money? A. Would 
have had to went in his pockets, I don’t know any­
thing about that, I don’t know whether he got some 
'or not. (Tr. 50).

Appellee on page 17 states, “ But the proof is 
clear and undisputed that it was several days be­
fore the confessions were made that the boys were 
whipped and at the time the confessions were made 
there were no threats of any kind whatsoever, and 
great care was used by Mr. Hargraves, special 
counsel for the state, to explain to them that their 
confessions would be used as evidence against 
them, and that they did not have to make the state­
ments unless they wanted to.”

Mr. Hargraves did not testify, hence we have no 
way of ascertaining what he said or did.

— 50—



It will be remembered as heretofore stated 
Mr. Todhunter and his ever willing and active cow­
hide were present. He did not inform the boys 
that he would not again whip or beat them. B. 
McCullom was present, also Mr. Hargraves and Mr. 
Fietz, two total strangers, were there. It was dark 
Boys in hands of a white slave driver who only a 
few days prior so inhumanely and barbically 
whipped both in the manner and at times several 
times referred to. Both boys wholly subservient 
to and at his mercy, if either had mercy in their 
hearts, they did not exhibit it, this officer and man 
was wormwood to the boys and they were as scared 
of him as they were of death. Boys were in a 
lions’ den, one unfavorable word from or move 
by them would have meant another beating. That 
is why Todhunter was present. They knew these 
men had been brought there at the instance of Tod­
hunter. They were in his office. They knew if 
they did not say exactly what was desired it meant 
another beating.

It will be recalled that Mr. Campbell on page 
205 of transcript refers to money in the same 
language as Mr. Hargraves in written confessions 
as a “Roll of Money” . The written confessions are 
the rubber stamps of those given by this same 
Campbell on page 209 of bill of exceptions. Of 
course the boys knew who were at the store,

51



topography of the country as well as McCullom who 
knew about the supporters and safety pin, hole in 
boot, as well as everything from inception to con­
clusion.

These boys surely were zealous and sanguine 
for money, so much so they, according to the con­
fessions, took the time, pains and specifically ex­
amined everything in detail everi to the extent of 
knowing Julius had fastened his underwear with 
one safety pin on one side and supporter on the 
other, even scrutinizing to such an extent they knew 
which boot the hole was in and exact place and 
size. This all done by ignorant, country colored 
boys in second grade, yet they had just or were in 
the act of committing two of the most bloodthirsty 
and henious crimes catalogued, one upon a boy with 
whom the Bell boy had been a constant associate 
and playmate for four years.

It will also be noted Mr. Campbell sends Mr. 
Hargraves, who no doubt he had conversed with 
going into whole case in every detail, to procure 
these “ Free and Voluntary” confessions, who takes 
Mr. McCullom along to intimidate, frighten and 
scare boys and confer with Mr. Hargraves as confes­
sions are being made. No doubt Mr. Hargraves, 
Mr. McCullom and Mr. Fietz talked over these de­
tail matters at the store and on road to Little Rock

— 52—



so Hargraves knew what to say and do, what sug­
gestive interrogatories to propound. His inter­
rogatories clearly reveal he was thoroughly con­
versant with every detail. It is not claimed details 
were gone over with boys prior to beginning written 
confessions.

It is said in Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 399, 
“ What conclusions to be drawn from the facts is 
a question of law and is reviewable by the an- 
pellant court.

“ If the confessions are fairly traceable to the 
prohibited influences, the trial court should ex­
clude it and his failure to do so is error for which 
the judgment may be reversed.

“ When once a confession under improper in­
fluence is obtained the presumption arises that a 
subsequent confession of the same crime flows 
from that influence (Love vs. State, 22 Ark. 336) ; 
but the presumption may be overcome by positive 
proof showing that the subsequent confession was 
given free from that or any other influence.”

What positive proof, or proof of any descrip­
tion, have we showing the written confessions were 
free and voluntary? Absolutely none except con­
cluding statements which was so much jargon to 
these boys. What did they know about “Re­

— 53—



numeration, immunity, advised, used in court, in 
evidence, voluntary, etc.”

Both said they were scared and were afraid 
if they did not make and sign confession Mr. Tod- 
hunter would beat them again and there is not 
a remotest doubt in our minds he would have. 
All knew these boys, particularly the Bell boy, 
would not make and sign the statement if he were 
not present to intimidate and frighten them. Mr. 
Campbell intended to be present but through 
some mishap was not.

There was no testimony they were not scared, 
afraid or intimidated. This burden was on the 
state to show this. No attempt was either directly 
or indirectly made to remove the fear, fright or 
intimidation.

The state must prove and the jury must be­
lieve beyond a reasonable doubt that confessions 
were free and independent. This it has not done.

The jury must be satisfied beyond a reason­
able doubt that a crime has been perpetrated.

It is said in case of Caveness vs. State, 43 
Ark. 334:

“ In cases of homicide, the corpus delicti,
by which is meant the fact that the crime has
been actually perpetrated, involves two dis-

54—



tinct propositions; namely, that the person is 
dead and that he died in consequence of the 
injury received at the hands of the accused-

“ Proof of a charge, in criminal causes, 
involves the proof of two distinct propositions; 
first, that the act itself was done, and sec­
ondly, that it was done by the person charg­
ed, and none other, in other words, proof of 
corpus delicti and the identity of the person.”

7 R. C. L. page 774.

State vs. Barnes, 47 Or. 592; 7 L. R. A. 
(NS.) 181-

State vs. Barrington, 198 Mo- 23.

“ Corpus delicti (body of the transgres­
sion), in law, the substance or essential actual 
fact of the crime or offense charged. Thus, a 
man who is proved to have clandestinely buried 
a dead body, no matter how suspicious the cir­
cumstances, cannot thereby be convicted of 
murder, without proof of the corpus delicti—  
that is, the death was feloniously produced by 
him.”

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 
Vol. 2 page 1277.

“ Proof, Identity— Corpus Delicti. The 
proof of the charge in criminal causes involves

— 65—



the proof of two distinct propositions; first, 
that the act itself was done; and secondly, 
that it was done by the person charged, and 
none other;— in other words, proof of the cor­
pus delicti, and the identity of the prisoner; 
and therefore the fact may be lawfully es­
tablished by circumstantial evidence, pro­
vided it is satisfactory.”

“ It must not be forgotten that the books 
furnish deplorable cases of the conviction of 
innocent persons for the want of sufficient 
certain proofs either of the corpus delicti or 
the identity of the person.”

3 Greenleaf On Evidence, Sec. 30 (15th
Ed.).

“ UNLAWFUL KILLING- The death and 
the indentity of the body being established, 
it is necessary, in the next place, to prove that 
the deceased came to his death by the unlaw­
ful act of another person. The possibility of 
reasonably accounting for the fact by SUI­
CIDE, by ACCIDENT, or by any NATURAL 
CAUSES, must be excluded by the circum­
stances proved; and it is only when no other 
hypothesis will explain all the conditions of 
the case and account for all the facts, that it

— 56—



can safely and justly be concluded that it has 
been caused by intentional injury.”

“ Justice no less than prudence requires 
that, where the guilt of the accused is not 
conclusively made out, however suspicious 
his conduct may have been, he should be ac­
quitted.”

3 Greenleaf On Evidence, Sec. 134 
(15th Ed.).

12 Cyc. page 488.

“ It is scarcely necessary to remark, that 
where a reasonable doubt arises whether the 
death resulted on the one hand from natural 
or accidental causes, or, on the other, from 
the deliberate and wicked act of the prisoner, 
it would be unsafe to convict, notwithstanding 
strong, but merely circumstantial, evidence 
against him.”

3 Greenleaf On Evi. Sec. 134, (15th Ed.)
note-

“ The meaning of the phrase CORPUS DE­
LICTI has been the subject of much loose judicial 
comment, and an apparent sanction has often been 
given to an unjustifiably broad meaning.

“ It is clear that an analysis of every crime, 
with reference to this element of it, reveals three

— 57—



component parts; first, the occurrence of the spe­
cific kind of injury or loss (as in homicide, a 
person deceased; arson a house burned; in larceny, 
property missing) ; secondly, somebody’s crimin­
ality as the source of the loss,— these two together 
involving the commission of a crime by somebody; 
and, thirdly, the accused’s identity as the doer of 
the crime.

“ Chief Justice Shaw, in Com. vs. Webster, 
Mass., Bemis’ Rep- 473; “ In a charge of criminal 
homicide, it is necessary in the first place by full 
and substantial evidence to establish what is tech­
nically called the CORPUS DELICTI,— the actual 
offense committed; that is, that the person alleged 
to be dead is in fact so; that he came to his death 
by violence and under such circumstances as to 
exclude the supposition of a death by accident or 
suicide and warranting the conclusion that such 
death was infilicted by a human agent; leaving that 
question who that guilty agent is to an after con­
sideration.”

3 Wigmore on Evidence, page 2782.

“ The term corpus delicti means the body 
of the offense, the substance of the crime. 
As applied to homicide cases it has at least 
two component elements; the fact of death, and 
the criminal agency of another person as the

— 58—



cause thereof. And, inasmuch as proof that 
the life of a human being has been taken in­
volves the inquiry as to the identity of the 
person charged to have been killed, it has 
sometimes been thought that identity of the 
slain is a third element. The principal and 
fundamental inquiry is the question of death. 
This should be shown, when possible, by wit­
nesses who were present when the homicide 
act was committed, or by proof of the body 
having been seen after death, or by proof of 
criminal violence adequate to produce death 
and which accounts for the disappearance of 
the body. In short, the body must have been 
found or there must be proof of death which 
the law deems to be equivalent to direct evi­
dence that it was found. It is not always es- 
ential that the body should have been found. 
The slayer may have cast his victim into the 
sea, or consumed the body by fire or chem­
icals. In fact, it often happens that the dead 
body cannot be produced, although the proof 
of death is clear and satisfactory. The dis­
covery and identification of a dead body or its 
remains as that of a person charged to have 
been slain having been introduced to estab­
lish the basis of CORPUS DELICTI, THE 
NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, THE ONE 
WHICH SERVES TO COMPLETE THE

— 59—



PROOF OF THE INDISPENSIBLE PRELIM­
INARY FACT, IS TO SHOW THAT THE 
DEATH HAS BEEN OCCASIONED BY THE 
CRIMINAL ACT OR AGENCY OF ANOTHER 
PERSON. THE PROSECUTION MUST 
SHOW THAT THE DECEASED WAS SLAIN 
BY THE ACCUSED, AND THAT DEATH 
WAS NOT DUE TO ACCIDENT, NATURAL 
CAUSES, OR SELF INFLICTED VIOLENCE.”

“ Each case must depend upon its own 
peculiar circumstances; and as in all other 
cases, the corpus delicti must be proved .by the 
best evidence which is capable of being ad­
duced, and such an amount and combination 
of relevant facts, whether directly or circum­
stantial, as established the imputed guilt, to 
a moral certainty and to THE EXCLUSION OF 
EVERY OTHER REASONABLE HYPO­
THESIS.”

13 R. C. L., page 736.

It is conceded it is not essential that the corpus 
delicti be established by proof entirely independent 
of the confessions, however, it is our earnest con­
tention the state has failed to prove a crime has 
actually been committed. Excluding the confes­
sions we have not one jot or title of evidence to 
show Julius McCullom or Elbert Thomas were

— 60—



drowned. If they had been shot there would be 
the holes; if stabbed, there would be the wound; 
if struck with an instrument, there would be the 
bruise; if larcency committed, goods would be 
gone; if burglary, house broken into; if forgery, 
the check and signature; if robbery, money or 
goods gone.

We have in cases cited by appellee the 
following:

Smith vs. State, 74 Ark. 453, burglarly—  
house broken into.

Iverson vs. State, 99 Ark. 453, burglarly 
and grand larceny— house broken into and 
goods gone.

Hall vs. State, 125 Ark. 267, another case 
of burglarly and grand larceny— house broken 
into and goods gone-

Corley vs. State, 50 Ark. 305, rifling 
county treasurer’s safe— money gone.

Turner vs. State, 109 Ark. 332, grand 
larceny— goods gone.

Melton vs. State, 43 Ark. 367, murder—  
we have gun shot wound-

In every case we have been able to find in 
our own reports and reports of other states where

— 61—



the question of the corpus delicti arose there were 
visible means of the offense, then a connection be­
tween defendant and the actual, open, visible fact 
that an offense had been committed.

But in instant case we have absolutely noth­
ing whatever disclosing that an offense has been 
committed. Excluding extorted confessions pray 
what have we left? Not even a bruise or mark 
of any description upon the body of either of de­
ceased. If money or other personal property had 
been traced from deceased to defendants or where 
they secreted it, some connection would be had 
but as we view this case there is not a whit of 
proof, excluding the confessions, that an offense 
has been committed by anyone or to connect de­
fendants in the remotest degree. We have noth­
ing to show that an offense was actually committed 
except the confessions which were extorted and 
pulled out of them through fear, intimidations, 
beatings, scare, fright, etc-

An offense committed by someone must nec­
essarily mean that this someone actually engaged 
or took part in the commission of the offense and 
the state must prove this beyond a reasonable 
doubt. Commit means actually engaged, take 
part in. If Julius had been shot or stabbed there 
would be the wound, so we would conclude some­
one shot or stabbed him, committed the offense,

62—



then we would have something visible and tang­
ible upon which to base our conclusion, but there 
is not a scratch, bruise, laceration, abraison, wound, 
yea not a mark of violence in the slightest degree 
on his body, face, head or limbs, or even one hair 
ruffled or missed, no clothes torn, ripped, soiled, 
muddy nor anything whatever traced from him or 
boat or bayou or anywhere thereabouts to defend­
ants, personally qr any place through them, no 
tracks, foot prints of defendants to or from the 
bayou or boat, no shoes nor clothes wet or soiled, 
no pocket turned partly nor wholly inside out, no 
cries, hollering, calls, no commotion nor noise 
heard, no blood stains, no finger prints.

On page 49 B. McC'ullom testified that the 
Bell boy might have been in the store between the 
time Julius departed and the time Bell purchased 
candy or something for five cents. Ransom Mc- 
Cullom testified to the same effect. Bell says he 
was in the store all afternoon prior to going to the 
home of Mrs. McCullom. All admit that he re­
mained at store upon his second return from the 
McCullom house until the body of Julius was found.

We agree with appellant that this court held 
in case of Melton vs. State, 43 Ark. 367.

“ That the confession of a defendant ac­
companied with proof that the offense was

— 63—



actually committed by someone warrants a 
conviction.”

The court in same case held.

“ One accomplice cannot corroborate an­
other within the meaning of the statute.”

Learned Assistant Attorney General is in er­
ror stating that:

“ Appellants make two contentions in this 
case, first, that the court erred in permitting 
the confessions of the defendants to be read, 
and second, that there is not sufficient evi­
dence outside of the confessions to warrant 
the jury in believing that the crime was com­
mitted.”

Appellant’s principal contentions for a new 
trial are:'

First, that the court erred in permitting the 
confessions of defendants to be read as evidence 
to the jury.

Second, that there was not sufficient evidence 
excluding the confessions to warrant the jury in 
finding a crime had been committed by the de­
fendants, or that a crime had been committed at all.

Third, that the court erred in not continuing 
the trial of the case to some latter day of the term

— 64—



and erred in forcing defendants to trial totally 
without preparation, knowing they were unable to 
employ counsel which were not appointed by the 
court until noon Friday and case set for and trial 
begun following Monday morning at 9:00 o’clock.

Fourth, that the court erred in refusing de­
fendants’ motion for a continuance to a succeeding 
day in term on account of absent witnesses and 
not permitting defendants to take the depositions 
of witnesses sentenced to and confined under felony 
charges in the penitentiary (C. & M. Dig. Sec-
4129; Tinor vs. State, 110 Ark 251). We fully ex­
plained our pitiable and dependent condition on 
page 188 of original brief.

Fifth, that the court erred in permitting wit­
ness Fietz, to contradict and explain written 
statements of defendants. It is true this particular 
evidence was excluded but not until the jury had 
heard and been affected by it. The testimony giv­
en by this witness at page 232 of bill of exceptions 
is not the same as that in confessions- When the 
jury heard this evidence its work had been done. 
This court has passed upon this point so often it is 
useless to cite authority.

Sixth, the court erred in refusing to continue 
the cases to another day of the term of court in 
order for defendants to procure the attendance of 
witnesses living in St. Francis County.

— 65—



Seventh, that the corpus delicti was not suf­
ficiently established nor was there sufficient cor­
roboration-

We hope we may have assisted the court in 
reaching a conclusion. We are clearly of the 
opinion defendants are not guilty, that they knew 
no more of the accidental drowning of Julius Mc- 
Cullom and Elbert Thomas than a babe at its 
mother’s breast, that they are only ignorant crea­
tures in the net of circumstances, that the Bell boy 
was at the home of Mrs. McCullom assisting her 
with her work and on the horse with her little son, 
Holbert, going to or from her home, that the little 
Swain boy departed from the store about 1 :30 or 
2:00 o’clock for his mother’s home and did not re­
turn, that Robert Bell was at the store as stated by 
him from the arrival of Ransom McCullom with 
freight until he left on horse for the McCullom 
home which his actions, conduct, looks and de­
meanor plainly show, that he was at the McCullom 
home twice that afternoon and once that night with 
Mrs. McCullom and her children with whom he no 
doubt played and as conceded by all parties he 
was at the store at sundown and remained there 
till after recovery of body of Julius and again that 
night in the presence of and talking to the father 
and uncle, yet no shoes nor socks wet, no clothes 
torn, ruffled and dishelved, but the state contends

— 66—



he had only a few minutes prior scuffled in a boat 
with six inches of water in it.

No one claims to have seen him going to or 
returning from the boat or bayou nor to have 
traced him to or from there.

He testified that he remained at the store 
upon the departure of Mrs. McC'ullom until he 
left for her home and both McCulloms testified 
that he may have been but they did not recall see­
ing him. They were busy waiting on customers. 
Pursuant to their testimony other boys were in and 
around the store, however they do not favor the 
court who they were, when they came nor when 
they left nor whether black or white nor that 
Bell or Swain was with them.

While it is claimed by the state Ransom Mc- 
Cullom testified the boat had the appearance of 
someone scuffling in it basing his opinion exclusive­
ly upon the fact it was wet on sides, had six inches 
of water in it and was as he “Figured” two and 
a half feet out of water on a gradual incline which 
is too frivolous to give even passing consideration, 
however, if we concede, which we do not, that 
there was scuffling in boat yet there is no proof 
that either of defendants did the scuffling or was 
nearer than the store any time during the after­
noon. If there was scuffling in boat there is noth­
ing to show that Julius and Thomas did not do the

— 67



scuffling or were not playing in boat.

If the extorted confession of the little Swain 
boy is correct and Flowers and Ferguson are to be 
believed as to the time of day then we are con­
fronted by this extract from Swain’s confession:

“ At the time Robert Bell mentioned the 
fact to me that Julius had some money Big 
Henry Flowers and Bob Flowers was going 
home. Bob Flowers had a package under his 
arm.”

If the state’s theory is correct that, “ It was 
pretty late in the afternoon” then Julius wais alive 
pretty late in the afternoon and the Bell boy was 
beyond all conjecture at the home of Mrs- Me- 
Cullom helping her for it is not disputed he had 
made two trips to her home, helped her with her 
work for a while and returned to the store by sun­
down. Both B. and Ransom McCullom and Robert 
Bell positively testified to this fact.

The state does not deny that the oral confes­
sions were extorted so neither free or voluntary, 
relies upon the written confessions but where con­
fessions have been obtained under circumstances 
rendering them involuntary and incompetent, a 
presumption exists that any subsequent confessions 
arose from a continuance of the prior influence 
and this presumption must be overcome before the

— 68



subsequent confession can be received. The con­
trolling influence which produced the prior con­
fession is presumed to continue until its cessation 
is affirmatively shown and evidence to overcome 
or rebut this presumption must be very strong, 
clean, satisfactory and convincing.

It is well settled that if any doubt arises on 
this point the confessions must be excluded.

The confessions led to the discovery of no 
facts which in themselves were incriminating.

In determining whether the confessions were 
free and voluntary, the ages, situation, experience, 
intelligence, character, disposition, boys in a room 
with and in hands and under the dominion of white 
officers, one of whom was sitting by the cowhide, 
had only a few days prior whipped and beat 
them, in the night time, doors barred, curtain 
drawn, lights on, and in the presence of, and in 
the same room with the father of deceased who 
had stood by, sanctioned, encouraged, advised and 
probably taken part in these whippings, non-resi­
dent, strange, white attorney and court reporter 
both in employ, under the direction and paid by 
this man; boys illiterate, inexperienced, born and 
reared on farm, know nothing but corn fields and 
cotton patches, in second grade in school, could 
read a little, conducted from dungeon and stock­

— 69—



ade in the night time by desperate criminals, hav­
ing in mind what had recently occurred in jail in 
Forrest City, on train, calaboose in Brinkley, hand­
cuffed and having recently seen other prisoners 
whipped by this warden, in absence of fathers, 
mothers and friends and all other circumstances 
and surroundings under which confessions were 
made, must be considiered and when this is done 
we have no hesitancy in saying the court will de­
cide the confessions were not free and independent.

No explanation by anyone that they would 
not be whipped. No explanation to them prior to 
being conducted into room. No explanation as to 
what a confession was nor its import. No conver­
sation with the boys before taking confessions. 
No explanation as to who Hargraves or Feitz were, 
nor what they were there for, where they were 
from, what their business was, why they were 
there nor why McCullom was there, what his busi­
ness was and as they had been whipped every 
time he had been there they no doubt presumed 
whippping was again his business and the regular 
order of the day, or probbaly as two more men 
were present they would be given a double dose.

We cannot conceive of two boys consumating 
such a heinous crime and that at a place where the 
father testified he and his brother could have seen 
Julius at the time he drowned had they been stand­

70—



ing at or near the door or near his stove and look­
ing, being within 175 or 200 steps of store and 
145 or 170 steps of public and muchly traveled 
highway ( highway was 60 feet wide) (Tr- 54).

We were appointed by the court to represent 
defendants, have no pecuniary interest in case, 
have not received one penny for our labor, but are 
firmly of the opinion defendants are innocent, so 
have given the case considerable time, thought 
and attention, sanguine it was our duty as attorn- 
neys and men, hoping to assist the court in reach­
ing a correct conclusion.

This is a real case of charity, pitiable and 
sympathetic, on our part extending a hand to the 
helpless boys who are creatures unable to help 
themselves.

If we were of the opinion either were guilty 
we would have done nothing nor said anything, 
be we sincerely believe, and have believed since 
talking to them in jail on Friday noon following 
our appointment at 11:30 o’clock and as matters 
have developed since trial, more so, they are as 
innocent as we, so have gladly and freely given 
them our labor and work.

Respectfully submitted,
W. J. LANIER,
G. B. KNOTT,

t. Attorneys for Appellants.

— 71—







/

V -

' '  •' • -.-3 . • -



%