The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1890-10-08
rnrnar Va. nroEIror

d
When the News discussed the charges
that were made by Mr. j. I. McElroy ia
the Detroit Free Press last Friday against
Candidate James NJ. Turner, II Gid so
without any knowledge Of the form which
Mr.. Turner's answer to these charges
might take. Considering the intrinsic
credibility of Mr.. McElroy's charges
against Mr.. Turner, 10 found in the evil
dence presented by Mr.. McElroy cortra-
dietions, weaknesses and uudoubted
marks OF malice that went TO discredit the
whole body Of evidence that was pre-
scented against the Republican candidate
for governor. The people OF the state of
Michigan have now been pretty well in-
formed by DIR. Turner through the News
what he has to say ia regard to the charges
against him. The charge aud the answer
are now before them in their entirety, aud
It is pretty easy JOB fOr anybody who
can compare statements OF nlen Of equal
credbility TO form a judgment on the
merits of the case.
Mr.. McElroy's charges were reducible
20 three propositions, Those propositions
were as follows:
j. That Mr. Turner, Ms a member OF the
board of control OF the State Institution
for the Blind. abused his position by secur-
ing the sale OF products OF his own indus
trial establishments, to his own great gain
and profit.
2. That as treasurer Of the institution
he used the funds Of the state school in
his private business, in plain contradic-
tion OF the law.
3. That Mr.. Turner, as q citizen, was
immoral, by reason OF having signed the
bonds OF ssloOnkeepers, aad having
rented property OF his own 10 persons OF
i'll repute.
In relation to the 1rst charge Mr.. Mo-
Eroy produced the atiiiavits OF Builder
Vincent, Slater Dougherty and an unsworn
statement OF q conversation had by one
Jay p. Lee. young Lansing lawyer with
the Messrs. Eberts, roofcrs OF this city
These were to the effect that Mr. Turner
had enforced the use Of the products of his
brick yards and slate qusrries in the con-
otruction OF the state institution Builder
Vincent makes an affidavit for Mr..
Turner directly in Opposition TO the
affidavit which he swears was brought
10 him ready-written for signature by this
Jay p. Lee, aud which be signed without
a full knowledge OF the contents. Slater
Doughcrty makes al AFFIDAVIT for Mr..
Turner that is practically the same as the
one be made for Mr. McElroy, that sffi-
davit containing nothing disparaging the
character Of Mr.. Turner. The Messrs.
be taken without question in this town,
where they have been in business for years
and years, make sworn statement
that completely coDtradicts the gArbled
report of the interview had with them by
this Jay Z. Lee. The tenor of oil the evil
dence on this section of the controversy is
that every builder who had anything 70 do
with the construction Of the state school
for the blind aud whose name has been
brought into the controversy was aud al
ways considered himself free agent in
the purchase OF the material he had occa-
sion 20 use. The sum of the statements Is
that Turner never sold brick To Contrac-
tor Vincent, but that Driokmaker John
Jordan did; and that Slater Dougherty
had q choice betwscn the use OF Michigan
| slate aud Maine slate, and chose the
former product freely aud without sug-
| gestion.
The evidence on the second charge, TO
wit, that Mr.. Turner had used the state
Institutions funds In his own business
and had mixed them with his own funds,
in contradiction Of the law, Mr.. Turner
| shows that he has deposited with him the
funds Of nearly 200 individuals, which
| deposits are subject TO draft; that
he ia. In fact, private banker:
that he deposited the state funds
with himself, in default OF any
direction Ia the statute that he should de-
poslt them at all or in any specific class Of
bank; that az all times his bond TO the
state was vastly In excess Of any amount
ever IN his hands; that the funds OF the
institution were kept separate from all
other funds; and that no check or draft
that was ever made on that account was
delayed In payment single hour. In
deed, for these charges Mr.. McElroy gave
no evidence that would pass in any court.
As to the charge that he 10 personally
immoral, az shown by the signing of
saloon bonds ana the leasing OF premises
10 persons OF al repute, Mr.. Turner shows
most conclusively that he does not own
the premises in question. On the saloon