Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1875-01-27

subsidy. he WAS summoned because
he published in his journal that somo
Of the committee wero mixed up in
the affair. In his testimony no admits
that the reference had to the committee
inclnded Mr.. Dawes, of Massachusetts,.
and then goes on to say that he knows
nothing Of the facts in the case, and
confesses that he had no idea that
Dawes was corrnptly connected with
the subsidy. We give below tho tcs-
timony upon this subject:
Mr.. Reid further testified that the members of
the committee to whom he had referred in his pa
per as being unfit to sit in the case, were Dawes
and Wood. He had no personal knowledge that
they were implicated in the subsidy scandal but It
had been corrently rumored on Wall street that
they had, and had therefore given the story ere
dcnce; was not snrc whether he received his in
formation from city editor Shanks or his Wall
street reporter. Els 3 hi9 .8.1aGa8
Mr.. Wood theseupon asked the writer whether
he did not know that he (wood) had strenously OPP
posed this subsidy clear through. and whether it
would NOT have been better to examine his record
to charges.
Mr.. Reid reJoined that he had never mentioned
the names of the two members referred to In this
common rumor, and remarked that great injustice
was done to Journalistic In supposing that they
must have personal knowledge Of everything they
write, which. In the nature Of things Is not pos
sible perhaps once In thousand times.
Nh, Wood, after asking a number Of similar
questions. LEFT the subject with the remark that,
since the beginning, there had been manifested .
unanimous purpose, desire, and intention on the
part Of all the committee to follow ont the investi
cation to the utmost.
Mr.. Dawes asketl the witness number OF ques-
tions, and finally inquired IL Reid had any reason
to suspect that he tDawes) received any money
from the Pacific Mail Company.
Mr.. Reid replied that he did not suspect Mr..
Dawes In the least
We wish simply to say that Mr.. Reid
in this, his own testimony. shows his
own meanness and unreliability. Were
1t not that 20 many Journalists Of the
country are guilty alike with Mr.. Reid,
though not many to quite the same ex-
tent that he is, his own confession
would place him in the category Of q
common thief or rather In the list of ex-
traordfnary thieves in the opinion Of
the general public. lie confesses that
he wrote and had published in the 1ri.
bnne statement that some Of tho COM
mittee, meaning Dawes as one, were
guilty Of dabbling in the subsidy. He
now says under oath that "he did not
suspect Mr.. Dawes in the least" He
knew then that he was guilty in writ.
ing and publishing statement which
served to filch from tho good nans OF
an eminent Statesman, he sent broad.
cast from his own hand over the ma
ton word that Mr.. Dawes was q cor
rupt legislator, and that he had taken
some of tho swag in tho Pacific Mail
subsidy. He gave to Mr.. Dawes no
benefit from qualified assertion that
he did not believe the statement. Had
It been published a. telegraph news,
or had it crept into the paper through
another medium than that of Reid
himself, there would have been good
excuse; but no, Mr.. Reid scknowl.
edgcs that hc made the attack on Mr..
Dawes character recklessly, malicious
ly and felonously in that no acknowl-
edged under oath that he did not be-
lieve his own statement. On tho wit
ness stand he admits that he slandercd
Mr.. Dawes-that he published dam
Tagging statement to his ::character--a
statement that he (Reid) believed to be
false.
We have long entertained of Mr..
Reid the opinion Of his character
that he now confesses is correct. This
reckless criminal abuse Of public men
or private citizens by the press is one
| Of its greatest evidences of demorali.
cation. In many cases 1t becomes 90
well known to the public that q journ.
al II unreliable that no one gives II
any credit, who is posted, and White.
law Reid's Tribune is one Of this kind.
4 7.