The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1883-04-07
Fuss and Feathers.

The Plaindealer in last week s issue iabors |
through about half column of billingsgate |
garbage headed "Independet Misrepresenta-
tious, in which it assumes to take rs to
task for publishing statement OF the facts
of the trial and acquittal of Frank Donald
son before Justice Flint's court tho week be-
fore, in which it makes use OF language and
insnuatious uLbecoming respectable iourn-
al. We would not notice the article or the
thing that wrote it had not the Plaindealer
on a previous occasion, by similar attack,
attempted to shield conductor of the O. &
c. railroad from Illegal and ungentlemanly
acts. which we published from statements
made to us By some of the Oldest and most
respectable citizens of our county, IN which
it won for itself reputation scarcely second
t. Baron Munchausen or Slubad the sailor.
1t complains that We made three mistakes
in our report of the trial. First it says
1.-The door was closed and held shut by hav-
ing a chair propped against it. and did not
stand AIR. Us the mighty editor of the lnde-
pendent falsely asserted" How the poor
little thing knew there was a chair against
| the door is mystery. as there was no evi-
| dence OF the kind introduced on tho trial,
uoless it was stopping IN the room with the
prosecutrix, which may explain ths reason
/ for this uncalled-for attack and the special
defense which the little thing pleads in the
article for it's failure and its illegal and un-
necessary action in the premises, for which
the taxpayers of Douglas county are charged
$5l 65.
Secondly it says: ''Now this mighty In.
/ dependent man knew that he was misrepre-
senting facts when he said that when or
/ dered out he stood not on the order of going
but went OF once How the little thing
found ont he did not go out at once requires
explanation, as the defendant testified posi-
lively that when ordered ont he got out as
soon as he could, and in this as IN most all
of his testimony he was corroborated by the
prosecuting witness.
Thirdly, it says that we insinuated that
the prosecuting witness was a grass widow
and was not overly choice in her language III
ordering the man out. AS to the witness be-
riga grass widow the writer of the article
in the Plaindealer is probably better informed
than we are, as she is its client, not ours
and it makes an admirable dsfense for her in
the article. Whether she be grass widow
or not, the language testified as having been
made use of by her was such that we cannot
aIr of 70 ho.,, ntoi alu1a "a
The facts developed on the trial were not a,
the Plaindealer states. 1t simply relterate,
the charges made in the complaint, which
were put in issue by the plea of not guilty
and found by the verdict of the jury to be
untrue and there is no going back on the
record. It says we blame5 the Justice and
District Attorney fer allowing such case t.
be brought into court. We made no refec
ton in our item upon the Justice of tn,
Peace, who we believe to be an honorabl.
old gentleman. We stated that the 'spro
ceeding was of character that should no1
have been allowed to come before the courts
Ii the poor little thing does not know what
officer is givensthe control and management
of all criminal proceedings by the State
then We are not responsible fer it's igao
rance. Much as we dislike to reflect upol
the official actien of an officer it is the dut,
of all independent, honorable journals t.
justly .criticise unjust or illegal acts, which
are detrimental to the public good. Fla,
the prosecuting officer done his duty in thes4
proceedings by requiring security for th,
costs, as provided by section l22 of tn,
Justices code, the county would not have t.
bear the expense Of these slam proceedings