The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1859-02-23
Judge Murdock Again.

p SEQ third page for --latest and 9th
reading matter.
Judge Murdoch Again.
We have no lengthy reply 10 make TO Il
extraordinary letter of Ex-Judge Murlock
laAt weeks Journal. The language of tn,
letter relieves US from any obligation to recol
nize the writer in any other light than that
which he has chosen to exhibi: himself. aud b,
for the anxiety expressed by several for the ia,
Of the Times Office after so terrible an onslaogt
Of vindictiveness aul passion, we would M
burthern our columns with single line In rel
erence TO II. Let b ief statement suffice.
Murdoch repels Indignantly tho inferenc
We drew that he tried his cases out Of court,
and yet he admits that he was Influenced b,
visits from persons at his "privatc residence |!
We care not how "good' the men we're VII,
visited nina Judge should BE- above zap
proaches" of any character.
He denies tina, be sent the Jury inst ruction,
Of a lenient character or that he an,icipat,d
their verdict in George Scovill,s case. VIM
8. Scott. Esq, Of Monona, one of the Jurymen
has stated the first fact to several Persons o
this place, and the anticipation or instruction
speech Of the Court was 80 notorious that the
lawyers and citizens of McGregor who were
present, express the utinost establishment at its
denial.
He says that he (Mrdock) and not Justice
Arnold, placed tie bail at $500. but that after
wards he consented to reduce it 10 $4Oo provid.
81 Judge Williams would be security for the
amount. This is true. and we are not sorry
that there is one spot in tho train of events in
which We were mi.led by our want Of law
knowledge. We propose to balance our igno.
rance of Law with the Judge by referring Incl.
dentally to the fact that Of Eight cases decided
by him in the Fayette Circuit Court, Fyse have
been set aside and the others not vet deter.
mined But Let US look at this: In his LIN.
sing letter he says the bail was 6yed ut 400,
oseause 10th indictments amounted to less than
$50 stolen, "and the bail was governed accord
ingly.' lie now tells Us that he "reduced the
bailto $40 provided Keys would give Judge
Williams for the amount and on no other terms: -
and that BENJAMIN was 50 instructed. Now
Benjamin. came to McGrcgor and Kc,s was
discharged or londs of $500 rahom Judge
Williams as bail What right bailff had to
tl'sobey the orders Of the court, we do no. know.
Perhaps the Instructions and The disobedience
we're in accordance With the reported general
to0seness Of the Court.
In the ansing letter We are informed tina,
without Keys testimony Bell could not have
been convicted" In tile Journal letter "Keys
was one Of the principal witnesses" We eta
ted that "keys' testimony was damaging to the
s'ate'-so say the lawyers and such would be
the inference when it is considered that one rob.
Der was testifying against another Of the SINE
gang. But this Is not all. Murdoch saws
Keys scas indicted before B. was sentenced. and
tn establish this essential roint at issue between
him and our "rclable Journal" he puhlishrs
letter from Gibbs Douglas. Esq, the Foreman of
the Jury. Mr.. Douglass says, Il would say
that according to my best recollection the in
dictnent against Keys pas handed into court
before Bell was sentenced" This is very care.
fully expressed by Mr.. douglass. and does not
prove the point. We have seen Mr.. D. and he
tells us that his duties as Foreman made il inn
possible to know 10 certainty, and that not
knowing what use was to be made of bis reply
ne gave the impressions he entertained. But
We can gel at this exactly: Mr.. Jno. T. Stone
'naA informs US that he drew the indictments.
and that lie is quite sure the sentence had pre-
cedenc", and Thos. TpdegaG, Esq, Clerk of
tie Court, tells us that the RECORD of the
Court shows that We ARE Right and the .Judoe
u Droas!' So much for .sreliability."
The naughty words heaped upon Us BY
Murdoch. we cannot reply to point or two
and We dismiss the case. We are "mean'' be.
cause we did not publish all of the Lansing
letter instead Of "garblcd extracts" He does
not show "garble," and had he sent his letter
TO the Times originally. instead of intinatinp
to bis "iriend chatterton" that our paper was
not important enough to attract his OF Judicial
attention. we should have allowed it to pass
with ten-line notice.
We are now done with this subject. Wa
began II to administer quiet. respectful rebuke
to judicial officer who had confcsscdly allow.
Ell NJ" feelings-we repeat it-his blindness of
heart to overcome his regard for official duty
We have continued it thus far to relieve our
selves from the charge Of having moliciously at
Tucked him. We do not deal In epithets TO-
wards an opponent in that line of writing va
roncede to Judge Murdoch the belt of cham.
pionship. Our cfice work is laborious and wa
IAN find profitable employment in giving our
'eaders matter of general interest rather than
weekly references ~ an irritable man who pre-.
ers any kind Of notoriety to the oblivion which
'ss been assigned him by his political friends.
The charge Of being IA .sbroken down poli-
icisn,' was an unfortunate one for ex,Judee
Murdock to make. As to our Swelling up" "a
"o.g editor" we submit to the public that |
'onicssion on our part of having been Familiarity
associated with Sam. Aurdoek. ou,bt TO relieve
IS from the imputation Of holding orr head
very high!
Inc gratnitous ding at our paper by the
Editor of the Journal, We regard as sanplev |
'1t to the general Advertisement, and it NAV |
,ise.
Worth AcGregOr.-Please read the Adyer.
isement OF Moncrief 4 Co., Wsrehousenen
y North McGrrgor. Moncrief viii probably
'e IN active duty at the Warehouse, and if the
''ate Of New York Or any other State this
'de Of the State of Happiness, ever turned out
more accommodating gentleman than "Bll,
doncrief. we havtmissed him on our path
Trough life.