Los Angeles herald., 1892-11-06
WHERE IS Mr. M'LACHLAN At?
His Opponent, H. G. Dillon, Dis
sects His Record.
A Strong Showing of Arguments and
of Figures.
The Special Counsel Matter-What the
District Attorneys Office Has Cost.
The Criminal Business.
Those Tax Cases.

EDITORS HERALD: In your columns {
Sunday morning is given a speech ds
livered by M. McLachlan, the presen
district attorney of this county. Th
statements therein contained and tn
attacks made upon me are based upo
such distortion of the facts stated Ii
my Downey speech, and of matters sup
piled by him, that l feel called upon t.
reply. Ny Downey speech was made a
the opening of the campaign, and, bein
based upon the records, was prompt.
printed in order to give my opponent
fair opportunity to reply. He has seel
fit to wait until near the close OF tn
campaign to make reply, and has takei
advantage of my absence in Antelope
valley to attack my character Tor trutf
and veracity and to call me falsifier o
the records. This is most cowardly
and will serve only to weaken his hole
on the confidence of the people. Hav
ing just returned to the city, l beg leave
through your columns to submit this
rejoinder,
Mr.. McLachan says: II deplore per
sonalities in any campaign" but he
fails to state that ever since the begin.
ming of the campaign he has attacked
me personally, and has used every
means to create prejudice against me,
we'll knowing that the speech published
by me was not personal attack upon
him, but q fair, square presentation oi
the record of his Office and Of the work
done by him during his incumbency.
EDGAR MOORE.
In speech at Whittier Mr.. McLach-
Ian said (and the statement was re-
peated in speech at Pasadena by one
of his deputies, and presume has been
repeated throughout the county, that
he, the district attorney, had in his pos
session an affidavit made by Ed
gar Moore, stating that before
Mr.. Moore had given Mr.. Dillon
the figures concerning special counsel
employed to assist the district attorney,
he, Moore, had stated to Dillon that the
services enumerated in said items were
all rendered prior to Mr.. McLachlan's
incumbency. In this statement Mr..
McLachlan deliberately falsified, for he
never had any such affidavit in bis pos
session; nor has any such affidavit ever
been made. On the contrary, when a
detective from the district attorneys Of
fee called on Mr.. Moore for such an affi-
davit he was met by blank refusal
from that gentleman and was told that
the items were correct as given to Mr..
Dillon and set forth in his Downey
speech. / herewith submit the affidavit
of Mr.. Moore in support of my state
ment:
State of California, county of Los An
geles, So.
Edgar Moore being first duly sworn,
on his oath deposes and says: That he
has never at any time given to James
McLachlan, or any person for him, an
affidavit, or any affidavit. stating that
at the time he gave Mr.. Dillon the fig
ures concerning special counsel he stated
to Mr.. Dillon that the services rendered
in the items furnished to him were rem
dered prior to the incumbency of Mr..
McLachlan; but, ON the contrary, when
called upon by detective for such an
affidavit he refused to give the same, and
informed him that he had read the
speech reported for Mr.. Dillon and that
the items therein contained were cor
rect. (Signed) EDGAR MOORE.
Subribed and sworn to before me this
LIST day of November, 1892.
FRANK "A, 0ARBUTT,
Notary public in and for the county OF
Los Angeles, state OF California.
1t is very apparent from these facts
that Mr.. McLachlan intended to de-
liberately place me in false position
before the people of this county.
SPECIAL COUNSEL.
Mr.. McLachlan distinctly states in his
speech that this $247s. SO special counsel
for the district attorney "was for services
rendered before (McLachlan) became
district attorney, except the item of
$3.50 paid to R. B. Carpenter. He fur
ther says that as he was the legal ad-
wiser of the county, the purchaser OF the
bonds naturally demanded the opinion
OF an attorney who did notrepresent the
seller. What was the attorney general
doing? Why did not he represent the
state? If Mr.. Carpenter, who was paid
this $3.50, was not acting for the county
of Los Angeles, for whom was he acting?
And if he was acting for a purchaser,
why should the county of Los Angeles
pay him this fee?
Mr.. McLachlan also says: "The
record shows not dollar had been
paid to assist me in any way"
Leu ub nco dUOuV buAo ntdtcnCAt.
The records show that on, the 7th day of
April, 1891, claim was allowed and
paid Stephen M. White for the sum of
$50-in the language of the itemized
statement accompanying the claim-for
"services as attorney for the sheriff's
Office during the month of March, 1891,
at $50 per month";" And yet, the dis
trict attorney tells the people he was
the advisor of all county officials. II
this was not for special counsel to assist
the district attorney, what was it?
Another of the nine items alluded to
in my speech as being for special coun-
sci for the district attorney was one of
1878 96 fees, Jan. No. 81, H. 8. & G.,
Cohn case, book VII, page l45.
In connection with this claim, wish
to consider another statement made by
Mr.. McLachlan. He tells the public in
his speech that omitted to state "that
every dollar of the money illegally OBJ
tsined on these (Edelman1 warrants
was recovered and paid into the treasury
during my administration. Let us
look at the record of this Cohn case. II
is No. II, ,799, and is entitled, County of
Los Angeles versus L. B. Cohn. The
docket says: Complaint filed January
8, 1890. Judgment for plaintiff Decem-
Der %. 1890, for the sum of $2479. 49,"
January 12, 1891, one week after Mr..
McLachlan went into office, the record
shows flames McLachlan substituted
for Houghton, Silent & Campbell as at
torneys for plaintiff. February the 9th,
1891, Judgment paid in full. This was a
hittarlv conteated case and was fought