Los Angeles herald., 1892-04-06
SOME INACCURACIES.
MR.. M'LACHLAN'S EXPLANATION
DOES NOT EXPLAIN.
The District Attorneys Explanation of
His Connection With the Wong Chez
Case-Some Quotations From It With
Correlative Facts.

District Attorney McLachlan in the
Express last evening replies at length
to some statements made recently in
the HERALD regarding the case of Wong
Chee, which he had dismissed recently.
The Express calls the explanation q
''good" one. Some extracts from the
statement. coupled with the facts as
derived from reliable sources, will show
how much credit the whole document
is entitled to.
The first quotation is as follows:
"Wong Ark shot and killed his mis-
tress, Gut Cue, and of this crime he
was convicted, and sentenced to life
imprisonment in San Quentin. He has
appealed the case. and is now awaiting
decision of the supreme court. The
witnesses who convicted Ark were all
Cinnamon"
Mr.. McLachlan in the last sentence
above appears to have forgotten for the
time the fact that there were seven
white witnesses against Ark; they we're
Mr.. Roper, Police officers Bevan, Rohn,
Vignes, Auble, Bowler, Captain Roberts
and Detective Wallin.
The second quotation is as follows:
"Chee was arrested at the time of that
murder with four OF his friends. The
police examined him and finding no
evidence against him, let him CO."
Chez was arrested that night, but either
escaped or was let 20 at once. No ex-
animation was made about the merits
OF the case.
The third quotation is as follows: she
was subsequently arrested and 1 ex-
amined carefully all the evidence devel-
oped and moved his dismissal before
Justice Austin for lack of evidence"
Chez was not subsequently" arrested
until few days ago, but remained in
hiding for fourteen or fifteen months,
most of the time being at Ell Paso. The
case referred to was dismissed while be
was still in hiding.
The fourth quotation is as follows:
Notwithstanding this the grand jury
investigated his case independently of
myself and they let him 60 on the same
ground"
The case was not investigated at all
by the grand jury.
The fifth quotation is as follows:
"He was arrested by constable from
Justice Stanton's Office, upon a warrant
sworn out by one of the perjurers who
came W thin one of conviction, and at
the investigation of the hired attorney
of the Wong Ark faction"
The recent complaint against Wong
Chez was sworn to by Tom Bing, who,
far from being one Of the perjurers in
tie Ark case, had nothing to do with
that case, or any case growing out of it.
The complainant, Tom Bing, however,
who is spoken of as 'perjurer," is Mr..
McLachlan's principal witness against
All Len ct al, which is now to be pros
ecuted and which comes up for trial in
few days.
The sum of the whole matter is that
Wong Chez was charged with murder by
Tom Bing before Justice Austin. With
out hearing vestige of testimony either
way, and on the simple declamatory
motion of Mr.. McLachlan, Justice Aus
tin discharged Wong Chez. Is this in
accordance with law? Secondly, Nc
Lachlan says Tom Bing is perjurer.
Can he prove it? Mr. McLachlan says
''It may require boldness or what you
please to dismiss 30 grave charge as
murder against man on preliminary
examination without evidence, but un-
der the circumstances l did it and l
knew what was doing"
Is it possible in this enlightened age,
and with the present admirable common
school system of education, that Mr..
McLachlan will claim that his simple
political speech is sufficient to release
a man from the grave charge of murder,
without the taking of any testimony?