San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1884-03-06
A Lame Defence.

ed in briefly reviewing 1t
| And first wo wish 10 express on
qualification at finding tho Sheriff a
last waking up 10 sense OF his re
sponsibility to the people who elect
ed him, as, prior TO this literar,
effort, no appeared qaite obliyious tc
that fact, and appeared disposed t.
take any criticism OF his official acts,
or even a reference to them by the
press or others, as personal insult, to
be resented and punished. Verify
there is still some hope for Mr.. Bar
Der. He abandons the Russian meth
dds and returns to those Of free
country, where the people bear rule
The Sheriffs article may be char,
acterized in general terms as an
attempted defence against charges
which have not been alleged against
him, passing by the principal ones
which have been made. For example.
Nobody ever complained that he did
not give the prisoners enough to eat.
We are glad to give him credit for
this and all other of his just deserts
In like manner no one ever thought of
blaming him for the bad construction
of the Jail, although, oddly enough,
he engages somewhat in an effort to
"whitewash" it. CA coat of the liter
al article would be much more effect
i've of good) 1t won't do, Mr.. Bar
Der; even the school children of this
day who study books on physiology
can teach you that certain liberal
portion of fresh air, room, and clean
liness, Gncluding freedom from vor-
min, the presence of of which in "my
Jail" the Sheriff is reluctantly
compelled to confess) are essential to
the health and even life of human be-
ings, as also that of the lower animals.
So his reference to the former admin
of the jail has nothing to
10 with the case in hand, though we
ire quite sure there was never was 10
much complaint Of them as prevails
vt present. All these points, howev-
sr, and others similar raised by Mr..
Barber, are what the lawyers style Gin
issues"
But while SO Huont on topics not at
ssue, the Sheriff is strangely reticent
Us to the real points in the case. We
viii mention few of his very
omissions.
l. He fails to explain why, with a
nil made to accommodate not over
dozen prisoners, he for months past
'ersisted in keeping about twenty, in
irect violation of the law, which ex-
ressly declares that they shall not
70 thus overcrowded, and which |
,ould have fully warranted him in
ending the overplus elsewhere for
afo keeping. When he rose to ex-
lain through his Kyle organ, why
lid he not explain this singular
2. He fails to explain why, with a
I'll thus liable to be cruelty over
he has retained prisoners
ere from other counties, refusing
) hand them over when requested
y the proper oflic ers of such coun-
les, and regardless of the remons-
RANGES of one, Mt least, Of our own
ounty commissioners. We have
God authority for stating he has
one this, and that, after needless
ost to this county of about $500 he
last found it oxpedient to return
lem, When he rose to explain,
ould not this have been u very
roper matter for explanation to his
,nstituents :
3. He fails to explain why, while
,fusing to send off prisoners belong
y to other counties, and the main
Dme oyerplus who were jammed in
my Jail" on purgatory, he actually
ia send to Austin two prisoners
larged with murder He did not
estate to take the responsibility in
lese cases, He may have had good
asons for his action-but will he
,ndescond to explain TO an anx-
us public what those reasons were,
nd why he apparently, thus discrim-
ated in favor of the worst criminals!
1. He fails 10 explain, why, after
'nding of these two only, he, in vi
alton of the law, which saws no
mel or unusual means shall Ice used
hold prisoners. put the remainder
irous1 Why suchmen as Robinson
81 Whitley, held for murder. were
at or to comparatively comfortable
ais aud fair treatment, AMI WHY
lch Il man as Hudson. charged with
.rgery, was retained here. his path
ic appeal for relief for himself and
li.r.rlr.ln.l anil thus