Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-01-12
THE MERRY WAR.
The Green-Otis ImbrOgliO
Grows Interesting.
LAWSUIT Oh A DuELs

Lawyers Think There is No Cause
of Action Against Green in
the Affidavit.
The topic of conversation yesterday on
the streets was the affidavit of j. W.
Green that when he was postmaster
Colonel H. G.. Otis, editor Of the Times,
attempted to bleed him to the extent OF
half his salary under the plea of having
secured him the Office. 1t was in the
general nature of genuine sensation.
One man would say, how can you be-
lieve Otis would do such thing? And
the other would reply, how can you be-
lieve Green would swear to it If he did
not know it to be true? An idea was
broached to the effect that Green was
led to swear to the statement without
knowing what it was. A HERALD man
found tho ex-postmaeter on spring street,
and told him this. He said:
eyes, but / did know what l was
swearing to. DO you think l was drunk
or crazy? / did that at O'Clock Fri
day. / was as sober as you are
now. You never saw me drunk, nor
has any other man, and you know me
pretty we'll. not only read that before
I swore to it, but I dictated it to the
man who wrote. will tell you who it
was. will tell you where Otis ap-
preached me. 1t was under that awning
down there on First street, below Spring.
am looking you in the eye as a man. l
tell,you everything in that is true."
B. E. Taney, the notary before whom
the affidavit was made. was seen, and
he fully corroborated Green's statements
that he was cool, collected and in the
full possession of all his wonted faculties
when he swore to the paper, and that he
knew all there was in it.
Later on Green and ex- Governor Shell
don, the editor of the Tribune, were met
by the reporter on Spring street. MIR.
Green called the reporter up and said:
''Here is the gentleman who wrote
that statement at my dictation. He
will tell you how we'll knew all there
was in it,"
Governor Lionel A. Sheldon, on being
asked about the matter, said:
eyes, sir, wrote it out. It came
about like this: Mr.. Green came into
my office, where / was writing, yester-
day. He laid q pad of paper on the
table in front of me and said: Cover
nor, will you write for me little state.
ment desire to make l took up my
pen, not having bit of idea what was
to write. Mr.. Green dictated and I
wrote. 1t was only as the matter was
pronounced by him and taken down by
me that became acquainted with the
contents Of his statement. As soon as
he finished 1 stood up from the desk,
leaving the paper lying where I wrote it,
took my hat and left the Office, going al
once to Pasadena. That is all know
about the matter"
The reporter was going to see Colone
Otis, but learning from q friend hi
views, and the further fact that they
dasss q aRs a sims sn1thb jfR aP 6zs 6szsnp
answer to inquiries prepounded by the
reporter, said:
"The statements are false in every
particular. I had no conversation with
Green at or about August Is. 1856, or at
any other time, on the subject of divid-
ing with me or any one else, either his
56AbA VI odO Va LID Ol1C0s
EITHER the statements in the affidavit
have been put into Mr.. Green's mouth
without his being aware of what he was
swearing to, or in his desperation he has
lost his head.
Il want to say further that I never
asked from or demanded of Mr.. Green
division with me of mis- salary or ol
the patronage of his Office to the amount
of one cent, or any other man. Nor did
I ever receive from Mr.. Green, directly
or indirectly, any portion of his salary
nor any benefit OF any kind out of the
patronage of his Office.
s'You will notice this peculiarly in the
printed charges against me, to-wit
That the numerous complimentary
things which the Times said in favor oi
Mr.. Green during his incumbency of the
office of Postmaster were said AFTER the
date of the alleged corrupt transaction
which is placed in his affidavit at about
August Is, 1886. He remained in office
q year after that date. The favorite
criticism on the Times and myself is that
1 praised Mr.. Green's administration up
to the time he went out of Office. The
logical inference would be that, were
these charges Green has sworn to true,
would have ceased to praise him after
August Is, 1886.
'I think now in the light of suhse-
quent information as to Mr.. Green's
character and capacity that l was
wrong in lauding him 30 highly, and
regret the fact, because it is my aim to
be as nearly right as possible under all
circumstances.
''I believe the affidavit made by Mr..
Green constitutes ample ground for one
suit against him for perjury, and an
other suit against him for libel. in
tend to ascertain legally whether such
suits can be maintained. If they can be
shall begin action in due time.
81 desire to say broadly, so as to cover
the entire case in all it's aspects, that
never approached Mr.. Green, or caused
him to be approached, with an improper
proposal of any character; and l defy
him and the world to establish to the
contrary"
The HERALD interviewed several law
yers as to the bringing OF the suits re-
ferred to by Colonel Otis. All who dis
cussed the subject said that no action
would lie against Green for his affidavit.
The law of perjury is that the false
statements must be made in a suit where
the matter sworn to is material to the
issues. Outside of that, man may
swear to anything he pleases, and it is
not perjury. AS to criminal libel,
they say such an action will