The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-10-25
TOO THIN /!

The Ottawa Republicans denial Of the
specific charges against Mr.. Clark as sher.
i'll III connection with the escape from the
county jail in June last of two noted pris-
oners and his failure TO recapturc them,
won't do at all The charges are, that
knowing the prisoners to be professional
cracksmen and experts as bank robbers,
with outside confederates, he csrelessly
allowed them to have tree communication
with outsiders, and particularly allowed
women, or a woman, OF doubtful reputa-
ton, to have frequent interviews with and
to carry bouquets and other articles to
them. 2-that during the week or two
the prisoners were occupied In saving
their way out of the jail, there was no such
inspection OF their cell as ought 10 have
been daily made, when even casual IN
spectlon would have revealed their opera
tons. And 3-That after the prisoners es-
capped, he made no due effort to recapture
them, though told within eight hours after.
wards OF the exact spot where they were
hsrbor,ng, to-wit, IN an old building near
the residence OF A. d. Butterfeld IN the
town of Manlius, less than ten miles from
Ottawa. Against these specific charges
and the witnesses named to substantlate
them, the Republican has nothing to put
in but general denlsl--whlch we believe
all we'll posted lawyers will say is contrary
to the rules of good pleading, Specific
charges must be met with specific answers.
Was woman Of doubtful reputation per-
milted habltually to visit the prisoners and
carry bouquets, &c to them? Was there
gross negligence in the matter OF inspect
ing their cells? And did or did not Mr..
Walter Butterfield notify Sheriff Clark of
the whereabouts OF the prisoners within
ten hours after their escape? Mr. Butter.
field is a good republican, is near at hand,
is a gentleman whose word no one will
question, and no doubt is quite ready, If
Mr. Clark IS belied in the matter, to say
so. Why is he not called upon to do so,
Another thing: If Mr. Clark is wholly
innocent IN the matter, why his morbid
sensitlvencss on the subject? OF course
we have all heard OF his recontre with Mr
Brown, the Mendoza lawyer, at Kennedy's
saloon near the railroad depot Was his
conduct there such as betokened conscious
innocence? Mr.. Brown met HIN in front
of the saloon and greeted him In friendly
way. Mr.. Clark at once assaied him in
the most brutal language Interlarded with
the most blood-curdling oaths, accusing
him of peddling the story of his careless
ness in letting the bank robbers escape and
negligence In the matter of their rearrest,
not denying the charge, but insisting that
Brown in Mendoza, or somewhere, had, in
addition, made the statement that Mr..
Clark had been paid tor letting the prls-
oners escape. Mr.. Brown protested he had
never heard or thought of such a thing
and denied in toto having said SO.
Clark clustered, ripped, swore, tore
around and declaring he had the name
OF his informant IN his pocket ierIed
large packages of papers ont of his peck.
cts and strewed them over the saloon floor,
meantime threatening to thrash Brown and
daring him to fight; and when Brown re.
minded, him that he Clark was peace
officer, sworn not only to keep the peace
himself but to compel others to do SO, he
replied THE peace be d-dl l waive all
that and dare you to fightl" or words to
that effect. OF course the only apology
that can be made for CLARK is that he was
drunk but is it not dreadful that La Sale
county is threatened with sheriff for the
next -four years for whose misconduct an
apology like that IS the best that can be of.
fered?