The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1891-11-21
A Pointless Document.

IAOl Va u tuIcC~COAuuu Au0o0 ~ UO1
timony concerning the penitentiar,
investigation, in which we aim t
give all of the points that tend II
any way to the exculpation of tn
board and think we have succeeded
The article, or mass, appeared II
. the Statesman of November l4th
and purports to be resume of thu
testimony adduced before the in
vestigating committee; but it il
not signed by any one, nor does il
appear to be an authorized version
OF the testimony. However, author.
ICED or unauthorized, it does not
amount to an exoneration of the
prison management. Moreover, we
are advised from Boise City that all
of the men examined by the board,
except John Mitchell, were "inter-
ested bread and butter Witnesses y
and only that part Of his testimony
which serves the purpose of the
board is published that that part
of Mr.. Mitchell's testimony which
related to the drunkenness of young
Roberts and to his and others Sleep
ing on duty is left entirely out. If
Mitchell testified falsely his testi-
mony should be published-not
suppressed-and he punished for
perjury. The suppression of testi-
mony does not acquit, but rather
duplicates the board as accessories
after the fact of the offense. So
long, therefore, as the board chooses
to suppress, rather than impeach,
Mr.. Mitchell's testimony, the intel
ligent portion of the community
must accept it as true.
In regard to Mr.. Tittsworth's tes-
timony about Jacobs, we are in
formed and believe that Ellsworth
was not an employe of the prison
until after Jacobs had left the place
and gone North, and that Tits
worth does not even know Jacobs
by sight.
A popularity of the testimony
and one that does not strengthen
it is, that nothing of Importance is
in relation to the Dunlap
Nc Creary fight, although this is the
fight in which one of the combatants
-McCreary-was seriously hurt,
and at which young Roberts was a
,ime-keeper, and on which both
French and Roberts had bet money.
Did not the board have some covert
'eason for directing its inquiries
@ the Braithwait-D Dunlap fight in
which it is not claimed that serious
harm was done, while keeping the
eal cause of the popular outcry in
he background? Again, as if by
all of the witnesses
wear point blank that Mitchell was
N duty in position from which
lie could not see, and did not see
he contest, although Mr.. Mitchell
lad not testified to having seen any
ontest, but only that he had seen
he men after contest, and had
bserved that one of them was pref
y badly used up. Why this eager
ess to contradict what had not
cen asserted?
The report, if such it is, is very
7eak and unsatisfactory and when
is reflected that the investigation
7as carried on in secret, even the
representatives. of the press being
xcluded from the committees
MEETINGS; that the committee was
INVESTIGATING its own wrongful or
1competent acts, and that Attor-
ey-General Roberts, himself a
,ember of the board whose acts ,
ere undergoing investigation, was
ttorney for both the prosecution
nd the defense, one is amazed that
whole month has been consumed
reaching report so peurile and
ontemptible; and still more sur {
rised that men who occupy re-
oectable positions in the state
Mould permit themselves to become
ven ostensible promulgators of a {
retended defense so entirely point
SIS and insignificant. 1t both fails /,
vindicate the official conduct OF |
,eir subordinates and belittles ,
leir intelligence. f.,