The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1885-09-05
BITTER AND UNFAIR.

-
continues to harp upon that old
charge against Judge w. r. Rutland.
At the opening of this controversy
we knew but little about the parties
or the circumstances, and had to de-
pend Oh the statements and recollec-
tons of our citizens, all OF our re-
cords having been destroyed by fire.
Within the last few days, however,
we have been furnished with an au-
thentic copy of the Indictment, as
well as other papers in the case. A
careful examination and comparison
convinces us that all the statements
we have heretofore made on the au-
thority of friends consulted in the
matter agree ,oith the record
This being the case we shall con-
slider only a single sentence of the
two columns of illogical and unrea-
soning constructions and deductions
arrived at by the editor Of the Ga
zette He says:
The assertion that the CHRONICLE
makes that Rutland Was indicted as
tar collector is not true. We had copy
of the original bill and thoroughly in
vestigated it in 1877, before Hon. G..
H. Ellis went to Grant parish with
Rutland.
The authentic copy of the original
bill of indictment now in our pos
session recites:
That w. R. Rutland, late of the par
ish aforesaid, on the - day of April
A. d. 1875, with force and arms, in the
parish, district and State aforesaid, and
within the Jurisdiction of the ninth
judicial court, did. By Uirtue Of his po-
sition as Tar Collector, and rhilst he
mas so employed as aforesaid, receive
and take into his possession certain
property, namely, seventeen hundred
dollars of money belonging to the par
ISL of Grant, for and in the name of
Grant parish of Grant, did receive said
money, and did embezzle the said mon
ey, then and there" etc., etc.
Ia. addition to the foregoing we
have brief, which we are assured is
in The Handwriting Of the editor Of the
FdrmerUilie Gazette, that shows con-
clusively that when he penned the
sentence accusing us of uttering an
untrutb, he was guilty not only of
gross journalistic discourtesy but
stamped bis own assertion with falsity
Of the worst kind. Had our state
ment proved untrue, we could have
pleaded ignorance in extenuation.
In 1877 he Investigated tue bill and
wrote brief for Rutland, claiming
the indictment TO be defective in four
essential particulars. We shall only
print his first allegation, which SUBJ
Stimulates the truthfulness of our
statement that Rutland was indicted
as tar collector:
The bill of Indictment is defective.
LIST. 1t is alleged that w. X. Rutland
"by virtue of his position as Tax Col
lectOr, reed, etc. Defendant not hav-
ing held this office, and the averment
of his capacity being one of substance,
the State cannot amend under section
1047 X. s.
So much for the mares nest the
Gazette editor imagines he has un-
earthed The indictment was ridicu-
lous in its inception. erroneous in
fact, and the district attorney so pro-
claimed by his action in having a
noile prosequi entered Judge Rut-
land stands before the world honor
ably acquitted IN the eyes of the law,
not having escaped by bare tech
nicality, but by virtue of the business
of his cause As we have stated, it
was case of persecution for political
effect, and the editor of the Gazette
IN giving credit to the charge does
great wrong, that should be beneath
his dignity.
In all the letters aud extracts pub
lished by the Gazette there is not
IN expression that is damaging to
Judge Rutland, and we are satisfied
bat o discriminating public will so
decide upon perusipg them. As to
the letter written by Rutland to
Judge Richardson, it was written by
II client to his attorney, and as such
should be held sacred, though there
is nothing in it to betoken guilt.