, 1889-10-17

stated that ho had been nominated for
office. Being nominated for office on
the democratic ticket was no proof that
a man had n good reputation. The
speaker had q dim recollection that
Griiiitts had once been nominated for
congress on the democratic ticket but
he had never heard anybody claim that
Griiiitts had good reputation.
Mr.. Grifiitts had claimed that there
was viper in a newspaper office In this
city who had stirred up oil this trouble.
Mr.. Graves had no way knowing 10
whom he referred, but he probably
meant j. NJ. Adams, editor of the RE-
VIEW. Mr.. Graves was not running Mr..
Adams and Mr.! Adams was not run
what may have been said or done by
Mr.. Adams had any bearing on the evil
dencc In this case. Mr.. Graves only
knew of two questionable acts In Mr..
Adams career-one was that he had sup
ported Voorhees, for congress and the
other was that he helped send Griffitts
to Olympia during the session of the
last legislature to address u committee
In behalf of North Yakima for the cap
ital, and for this last act MIR. Adams had
rcpeatedly expressed the deepest humil.
iation and regret and had said he would
never be able to make amends for his
endorsement of Gritiitts during the
course of his natural life. The whole
subject of Mr.. Adams and the REVIEW
were entirely outside of the case. They
were not on trial. If Mr.. Griiiitts had
anything against Mr. Adams why didn't
he so after him in a proper manner
Why didn't Gritfitts bring an action for
damages against him for libel? Mr.
oiraves guessed the REVIEW was good
for IL.
Counsel for defense had devoted the
most OF his speech to the fees alleged to
have been received by the council for the
prosecution The feos of counsel on
either side, how much they were or who
paid then, had nothing whatever to do
with the evidence. Gritfitts had repeat
edly asserted that Messrs. Cannon, Clio
yer, WILSON, Burns and Taylor had un.
lawfully taken $500 from the relief
fund and appropriated IL toward hiring
counsel and procuring evidence for the
prosecution of these cases. eff those gem
tlemcn did this" said Mr.. Graves, "they
were guilty of cmbezzloment, and al
though some of them are my clients,
should | become convinced that they
had used the money as charged, !
would not hesitate to prosecute
them. But they have done no
such thing, They loaned the citizens
committee through J. ID. Sherwood ana
others, that amount, and every dollar of
1t has been paid back. If Grifltts can
prove that even dollar has b0en di-
vcrted from the relief fund to my pocket
lwill not only pay il back but will as.
sist in prosecuting those who placed it
there But oven If n portion OF the re-
lief fund had been used for the prosecu-
tion of this taso 1t would in no way have
excused this defendant. Tho claim had
been set up by counsel for defense that
Dueber had gone TO Mr.. Taylor and told
IN ~ oil .t 4, - 1T A. 4 4
not done so until after he had stepped
oil the train on his return homo and
found himself in the clutches of
the law on charge of en-
bez2ling the goods. Mr.. Taylor,
whom Gritiitts had held up
as the most honorable member of the re-
lief committee, had signed the complaint
charging Dueber with stealing the goods
u Ken TO his cellar. Ii had also been
claimed by Griilitts that Dueber was not
at home when the goods were delivered
and had no knowledge that goods were
being taken to his cellar Men were not
in the habit of taking goods from the re.
lief tent and dumping them promis.
cuously in tho cellars of private res.
licences without the consent of the own.
ers. Dueber, in his testimony, had
given as one reason for taking goods TO
his cellar, that his brothers family were
and family came there on the night of
the fire and remained from seven TO ten
days; but Ducber did not get the goods
according to his own admission, until a
week after the fire. Another reason
pueber had given for taking the goods TO
his cellar was that he wanted to
distribute them tn the poor. 1T this was
his intention he had evidently changed
his mind. He was giving orders all the
time, but he was giving them on the re.
lief tent and not on his cellar. Mr..
Dueber was well provided with this
worlds goods, man of wealth, his
counsel had said, and in his overilowing
generosity he had given from the bountf.
tul stores OF his cellar one ham TO an old
lady, and when his poor brother, who
had lost what little he over did have, had
asked him for some goods, he had dolod
him out few cases of canned goods
four or five pounds of sugar, and a few
other articles in the same proportion,
and retained the remainder of the goods
Before Mr.. Dueber took the stand Mr..
Graves said he had remarked to his asso.
Ciates that they would not he able
to convict him without the presence of
Inglis. But since Dueber had testified
in his own behalf there was no doubt
about aconviction. His own testimony
was sufficient to convict him before any
jury, and he should be held to answer.
Mr.. Graves talked Just thirty minutes.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Graves speech
Justice Dunning said that this case was
different from the others, and as he de-
sired to consider IL at some length he
would hold the case over until Monday
at =. NJ, when he would render dc.
cision at his office. Adjourned.