Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1893-09-20

Il
city council in the Blankenship affair.
The condemnation appears TO be
based on an absence OF even ordinary
information concerning the character
Of the proceedings against the late mar
shall.
The feature OF the councils conduct
which particularly infuriatos half
cooked gentlemen was the resolution
passed in secret session Diminishing the
charges against the marshal. A person
OF ordinary judgment and having been
ordinarily well informed, would natu-
rally and correctly inquire, "Whst else
could the council have done with the
chargesP"
II will be borne in mind that one of
the charges against the marshal was
having diverted money which belonged
to the city to his own use; the other
was having extorted money from the
woman, the complainant, Andria Girl
jalva, by means OF threats. As to the
latter, it can easily be seen the alleged
offense was one having no other effect
upon the marshal's relation to the city
than that OF bringing him into disre.
pute. Whether or not he had extorted
money from her, 1t was plain that the
extortion had been committed without
loss to the city. That the extortion
was reprehensible and warranted a
severance OF the relations between the
city and the marshal, who, il the charge
was sustained, was clearly unfit to hold
Office, none will deny, but mis- offense
was only against the complainant, who
must find her remedy before some
other tribunal than the city council.
So the councils refusal to entertain or
proceed against the marshal on that
charge was perfectly proper.
The first charge was OF the nature of
an accusation of embezzlement. 1t was
said that the marshal had collected
from this same woman $40 for each of
the months Of March, April, May and
June and that he had only paid into the
city the collection for March, thereby
defraudipg the city Of $50 in this in
stance alone. The woman produced
receipts from the marshal showing
that it bad been paid, but this fact was
acknowledged by the marshal.
Again half.cocked gentlemen must
bear in mind that the<money received
from these women is either q fine or
bail. In one case 1t can only be legally
collected after trial before the recorder
and in either case only after a warrant
of arrest has been issued by him.
No warrant had been issued against
this woman in any Of the six months
mentioned in both charges so the city
Was clearly not entitled to the money
which che paid. The council was in
formed Of the status OF the case by the
city attorney and saw that OF whatever
offense the marshal had been guilty, it
certainly was not embezzlement as was
charged. Hence the dismissal; the
jurisdiction OF the council did not in
clude the power OF convicting him OF
extortion or blackmail, neither was it
the duty of that body to institute pro-
ceedlngs against him for any offense
other than that Of incorporation
OF the city's funds. Under what pres.
sure, If any he rendered his rssigna.
ton we have not inquired nor is that OF
any interest to us or OF any
moment to the half,cocked gentle.
men except as an alienation OF a dis
tressing curiosity.
| We have no doubt the mayor or any
of the members Of the council would
willingly and truthfully tell now what
transpired In that secret session.
1t Is also charged that the books OF
the marshal show heavy defer. which
the council should take coRnizancs Of.
Ton what information this charge 10
/ based We Do not know but we do know
that after q similar accusation was
maae against him last spring his books
settlement were found to
4 be sigid'y correct. There lie little doubt
that they are so now, by which il 10 NOT
meant 10 say that the books form com
pTese record Of the marshaI's transac.
4 tions wish the city, but that II there is
q deficit 1t is not apparent in his &C.
counts. ~ there 10 . dsfcit amounting
to large sum as charged the fact can
be ascertained only by tedious investi-
-.