The Portland daily press., 1894-07-09

Col. Dow does not seem inclined to
accept our suggestion that he present
definite charges to the sheriff and evil
deuce in support of them against the
men whom his newspaper has alleged
to be guilty of corrupt practices. That is
| to be regretted, because it is for the
interest of the public in general, and
Republicans in particular that any and
all officials that have been guilty of COL
rupt practices should be speedily re-
moved and punished, and that cannot
be done without evidence. But though
Col. Dow is unwilling to present charg-
| es in person, he did permit his paper
on Saturday night in an article entitled
1.-The Durant House," to make what
| amounts to charge of subornation of
perjury against Liqour Deputy Charles
A.Plummer as follows:
One of the 1.-TWO" witnesses referred
to above, the one to whom Plummer had
given money to induce SWEET to violate
the law, was, it is said, now approached
by the deputy 1t is said that he told
Plummer that he had bought liquor of
SWEET; perhaps Plummer believed him.
But as a matter of fact neither he nor
his companion witness had done SO and
he has since so stated. Naturally he
did not want to testify under oath to the
lie that he told Plummer. He could I'M
derstand that that was dangerous, and
he said that he told Plummer that he
would rather pay $40 than go on the
stand and testify. If so, that was no.
tlce to a man of Plummer's experience
that he probably could not testify truth
fully to anything that would aid the
plan. Plummer then, according to the
witness, promised not to summon him.
1t is SAID that though he kept his
promise to the ear he broke it to the
hope, for the summons was served by
another~deputy. Why this was done
might perhaps be better understood if it
was known what the other of the two"
alleged witnesses to Sthe tale said to
Plummer. He was a nger-minded
man than the first one, and probably
could not be bought to swear to what
he knew to be false. Thus poor
simple witnes. anxious to please his
employer, disliking it may be believed,
to swear falsely, was forced into court
where he knew he could not aid the men
who had employed him, unless he should
swear to a lie.
Here is Enthusiastically charge, very
thinly disguised, that Plummer either
bought false testimony or forced if
from this spotter The correctness of this
Interpretation is confirmed, if confirma-
ton be needed, by tho following para
graph from the Expresses editorial col
umn referring to the same case:
Against what man is Deputy Sheriff
Charles A. Plummer now plotting by the
employment of needy man who shall
act as "spottern that some one who has
in CURED the liquor deputy's displeasure,
may be punished? Who will be the next
young man to lay himself liable to state
prison for a term of years by taking a
false oath by direction of this guardian
of our laws? Will there be another
"spite" case tried out with a tool who is
anxious to earn So. on and drink.
The second sentence clearly charges
that the spotter was induced to swear
falsely by Plummer-that he SO swore
by Plummer's direction. There can be
no question as..to the quality of this
performance If Plummer has done
what is charged he ought not only to
be turned out of Office, but prosecuted.
Subornation. Of perjury is high rhine.
Sheriff Cram cannot afford TO allow a
man guilty O. such an offence to remain
in Office minute after the charge is
substantiated. 1t is his business to pro-
coed at once to make inquiry, and it
seems to us that until that inquiry is
concluded Mr.. Plummer should be sus-
pended.