Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1884-10-16

IA fIYHEgNtg lkutsE
70 . -
Shareholders Who We're Pro-.
: sTn,s,I teotetavx sVs5.s,s
-
~ 1 al .r.ait 49,. r,ce,sss. MAS,
con sressional : $500.
. !. . !. =. -. -
ssmens onasia1ssS cry =
....agu In Gigantic Erauor kog.U
.SHSFII 1JulJgg1zkk4t HI aIllNJuJG
Tha s,on,.,;.tsaon Exnanditures in tho
sDepaFtmens. q .yusI.cS. .witSx - Sate5
ithHfast.se OF Ious 49, ~ ss ~ - ,
tl1eGs EfArIf0utd prosecutions, has, ac0m-'
W. 800 .1e,.-. q s-,,a,,,Lv,,;ss ;oy, ~ tha
pIeUeu iu5. E0f1rs ~. . -, - ::
House ON. raaSSenbling sIAe ireportFlS
sEnsd fby ,Messas Spdngen inet G In,
n PEI .ssEa ~ snan,hars II the
anu Sa.sp' - s.ts;fs 80 lanoth the
S Ies1HH a,fsxnnaSs s frauds from
conmenoemsnt.. 81. ths snifs and de-.
80 s,a,,ld not .bavts hecrf commit
ted without The knowledge, cooper
atiep.e and ssistance ri s ahofIlrla 49, :.
Brady, and that not on IN tfli11ts1ta.fis
'orsp.bnt. many eIner, sfsAlvI,s - ~
oHre1al. pDSltions III eiS UoA1.spesS -
we're. either erisninally cognizant OF the
frauds OF guilty participants therein 's,,ia.
1t deeiafeSsth a4thEsaMpungosto Whicn
the GoyfrnHpeeRt WAS delragus n ,ms
star-route niaI sef 'i1o u lniS, onn A.
one 1irne the t{Toyernmeut was. paying
sa5o,ebe per year for carrying mail 70
,.a,on,,a u trE6 "A s,Yrf bag M, followino
TeFFtifi uI M * A 80 -! !, go
70 P.r sayo n c9n6 b;6atian ~
- an,,a.,, f,,,,,, the aviderce. thattwo of
the most powerful ute
EaEsss ponenssRs, Az e nss,s g gSssarins
~ se,Iso ,,1S,,ys was
Taesas 4 peyist sp@Iaai soatras rat. f9s the
re @'.o Mepeyitthad been indieseddn
tain routes in as-a matter aq'tte, distinct
IRON gb sho Mo "a wh Mas Sirseted hy Attory
-Gereraf -.facycagh -nna- fcstmasf-r.t4enera
James e pf9errs az Meh,gvi.I
aa w. Hcnewtt made q fmii statement OF the
laaefa within his knoNlease, and was, giysn by
Wo9aYard an wRitem gJ2msse 81 IN
The binding foroe of this Implied promise was
recdRiized by James and MacNeagn: Nc
neelta aaof f .1as nc sormatinn within his
knowitdgexheneaerc called upon bSsthe Gov
ernment. Motwthstana,ai ,, 'nss na M ;iniad
u,nm mis- of ,'immunity - which, he, had
received from Woo award the Ph1ade phia in
dietment was pressed TO trf ana"
itiaTy for one one sear WHO'D valid prote.fad to
the President ana IN
,emi,l rltssa,as III the, Governmept had, peen
broken. but. cIemency in his behalf was not
granteu. WnouW stass " ha shn,d raiied
mon to break into the SALISBURY combination
and show their methods of doing business.
ana tha{ rs was 5he 0bg wlane
ton, but that the Government took that wit
ness and sent him to the penltentiarTy;, ,.
reduced to- a science The atfidayits Of con.
tfaetors and others We're USED as afoa s ,
.wern alinwed The brazen eTronfery and per.
Jury Of these aflda inaAet rs is yssshourapar-
auel in the history OF criminal pr9sffutpns.
consideraoie poIlssls9ifi . - ny Iepols
Is deVoteu 10 the sunJecC ~ enPloy-
A1nens ana compensation on NMorneys.
'tIhe" anounS' paM HOE Tins pufPs,sS as
lar as l.asoeroainen.ts was ofs 20, %
hS1 nfofsSSSs tssS t s. 81 ~.
Psanatlqn 81 the ia5inre o. tne 81. govern 1
Star.route trials, isgSvers but tine report
rsays the committeeit ibid mot hnve, time
to pursue thB ION u nnreference
IN attemnts To bribe jurors. In REFER
- -. - " ~ ~ '; ,}iiI va va * Z -,
ence 70 contIac LOTS not inuictep Tug re-
port saws tabulated statements IN the
Postiofice Department showlntliat the
amount when 10 rs CLAIMED could nave
5hean srecoverptl from the Salisburys and
pI :: ..:-.-.4a =. -sea sno u,Lhx,
arheIs Is es1iinaceu a. @1os'T"o' Incy
should have been 1nqlcted ana lconylct-
II es,, 49,. ,,nvyae,,f,I IN
fitlence secured their IMMUNITY. In
renee III ffhe failure to- ihtifct fx-
Governor kellogg the .eoinmitssea says
there i. is, =, wide .issue.ots xsraeity be-
Grand Jury as TO- the, efioEtSn made TO
procure the ,indictme4f, -Four members
Of the jury, including the, foreman,
testified before the COMMITTEES, and from
-sthei testimony given the Jury inti1fates
the opinion that greater effort ,toindlct
kellogg might ihave aInet with success.
The case against him failed because the
court held that fAassi pnenset consisted In
the receipt oI dra lll. ans was narreq py
the statute OF Hmlfations. III conclu-
sion the report says:
. our committee 40 OF the opinion that there
the successf,n pr3seeation 81 he sroa
been, i s douptIess true that those whs win
taken '' bvs com,nitee On this sbiefy
Comprising nearly a,fhousand pages Of print.
ed matter, VIII reaeh sdiffefents CONCLUSIONS.