The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-10-08


the fact that If the bond had been for
feited his percentage for collecting the
$1,000 would have been one hundred
dollars.
Judge Hale was amazed. But what
could he doP Certainly, Hinckley had
been punished enough. No one. who
has read this history will for moment
pretend that he should have been fur
ther troubled. The one thousand dol
lars could not be restored 10 his wife.
1t had been paid with the express
agreement, as Mr.. Metcalf states, that
there should be no further prosecution
OF Mr.. Hinckley, and with the promise,
as..Mr, johnson now admits, that the
criminal prosecution should be dropped.
Hinckley had been tarred and feathered
and harshly treated by the mob in
Ridgeyille. He had been brought from
Missouri to answer to criminal charge
and all the property in the world pos
sessed by himself and wife, except
their household goods, had been ex-
hausted in the settlement Of the case
as above stated. Surely, with full
understanding Of all these facts, no
one will say that it was Judge Hale's
duty to cause Hinckley TO be further
pursued.
What was Judge Hale's duty towards
Mr.. Nye? Up to this time Mr.. Nye
had discharged his duties to the salts.
faction Of the court. He had lived an
honorable life. He was regarded by
everyone as an honorable attorney.
He asserted that he did not intend any
wrong. and Judge Hale did as any
other kind and large-hearted Judge
would have done under similar circum'
stances. He chose TO reprlmand Mr.
Nye so severely that he returned the
one hundred dollars and the matter
was allowed to rest; and, surely, in
view Of all the circumstances, no
candid reader will for moment criti'
else the course that Judge Hale pur-
sued.
Now, if the foregoing narrative is alb
solutely true, and absolutely fair to-
wards Mr.. Nye, certainly our course ID
vindicated and the first reason that Mr.
johnson gives why the Republicans Of
Lorain County should not vote for Mr..
Webber is swept away. We have moi
slandered Mr.. Nye
In our issue Of July 30th, we stated
explicitly that Judge Hale had given
Mr.. Nye severe reprimand because
no had allowed the case to be dropped,
and, because, in the receipt Of the one
hundred dollars he had committed D
serious offence. We now offer Hr.
! Brauihn's statement Of what Judge
Hale told him while the matter was
fresh in his mind, and .-..
WE CHALLENGE
Z. G. johnson or Mr.. Nye or any other
man in the United States to get Judge
Hale TO answer any Of the following
questions in the negative:
1. Is not the foregoing narrative cor.
.rectP We do not mean that absolute
accuracy that is beyond the reach Of
human memory, but is 1t not fairly and
substantially correct, so far as the same
is within Judge Hale's knowledgeP
2. Does not Mr.. Braman in his state
ment published herewith represent fair
ly and accurately the conversations
Judge Hale had with him relative to
the Hinckley casep
8. Did not Mr.. Nye admit to
Judge Hale that he took the ono hun
Idred dollars intending TO keep itP
4. Did not Mr.. Nye offer the excuse
for taking the money, as Mr.. Braman
states it, or some excuse Of character
precisely similarP
5. Did not Judge Hale advise Mr.
Nye that the Hinckley case was one for
the Grand Jury, cautioning him against
entertaining any propositions for set
tlement?
6. Is not Mr.. Nye's statement that
Judge Hale told him to consult with the
leading citizens Of Ridgeville, and then
to use his own Judgment about the set.
tlement OF the Hinckley case, untruei
Z. Is not the following paragraph
taken from Mr. Nye's published state
ment wholly inconsistent with the posi-
ton Mr.. Nye took and the admissions
he made in his conversations with
Judge Hale in the winter OF 1928, re-
lativo 10 the settlement OF tho Hiuckley
case, TO wit;
sixth The Hinckley prosecution was
abandoned simply and solely because
tho woman said to have been injured re'
fused TO testify against him, and on the
earnest solicitation OF her iather and
friends. never received one dollar tC
induce me To consent TO Its abandon
mont"
y. Did not Judge Hale state after his
interview with Nye, in which Nye OK
planned his relation TO the settlement o.
The Hinckley case, that the transaction
was Q very grave and serious offense
To get right TO the very heart Of thil
part OF our evidence, we wish TO stat
that Judge Hale could not, as an honor
able man, remain silent II by the use o
his pom he could vindicate an old frient
from unjust charges. Mr.. Nye Is hi
debtor for silence, and, In our opinion
Il Is outrageous that Nye's friends
should use Judge Hale's forbearsnce q
= leading argument 70 sustain tn.
charge that Nye has been abused, and
therefore, reasonable excuse Furnished
for an organized bolt the sole objec
Of which Is 10 defeat the election OF Mr.
Webber, who was fairly and squarel,
nominated by our late Republican con
yention. We refer our readers to Mr.
Bramsn's explicit statement OF jus
what Judge Hale told him about tn
settlement Of the Hinckley case Will
the matter was fresh In his mind.
Novx lat Mr.. johnson or Mr.. Nyo q