Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1894-09-07
WHY DOESN'T HE ExPLAIN4

1Hc HECOHD 1S eHteTeU Qt Tue V2HtQmSDO1t
P0StOGce as second-cLa matter.
WHY DOESN'T HE ExPLAINq
To several citizens of this county Mr..
II. A. Armstrong has stated that he knew
nothing of the bribery affair; that he was
at Van Beck on business the day that
the bribery took place; that he saw the
men there who were afterward found to
have paid the money, but that they said
nothing to him about it. To one citizen,
one day this week, Auditor Armstrong
said that his being down there at that
time did look little suspicious, but that
Streeter had not accused him directly of
being party to the bribery The citizen
asked the auditor why he did not deny in
print, as he had been frequently invited
to do, the intimation that he had knowl-
edge of the bribery. He replied that it
would do no good to get into newspaper
fight.
He also stated, in reference to placing
exempted personal property on the tax
lists, that the late Auditor Herrick put the
exempted property on the books, and that
he (Mr. Armstrong; did not take it off.
Now, what reason has there been for
Mr.. Armstrong refusing to come out pub
licly and make these statements, instead
of buttonholing voters and telling them
these things, without giving an oppor.
tunity for contrary evidence. The au~
ditor is too much of a lawyer to claim
that one-sided testimony is good testi-
mony. He must also know that strong
circumstantial evidence always has weight
in the absence of anything in rebuttal.
Wouldn't it have been a good dead better
for him to have made some effort to ex-
plain publicly, if he could, the suspicious
circumstances that have attached to him
in connection with the bribery and the
collection of illegal taxes? Have not cit
lzens and taxpayers of this county right
to have such things explained by man
who since he settled here has almost con-
tinuously held official position, the salary
of which they paid? But let us look into
the matter further. We wish to ask Mr..
Armstrong the following questions:
Is it reasonable to suppose that Mr..
Van Beck, who is not noted for extrava-
gance, would put up $50 of his own
money to elect some other man to a
county Officer
-~lsit likely that, beizg abeut to~do So
he would not say something about it to
the man, present at his house, in whose
interest the money was to be given?
Is it reasonable supposition that, be.
ing present at Mr.. Van Beck house just
as the party was leaving for Selz. none OF
them gave him hint as to what they
were going to do for him?
If he knew nothing of the matter, why
did he state at Williamsport, on election
day, IN the presence of witnesses, tha,
he had not been at Van Beek's for six
months?
If he had had nothing to do with the
matter, and as a good citizen reprobateC
the giving of bribe to defeat a man nom
mated on the same ticket with himself
why did he go to Fargo and tell the news
papers that the giving of the money wa.
simply a "pledge," and not bribe?
We ask Mr.. Armstrong, in all con
science, if the people of this county have
not had good reason to be suspicious re
garding him, and whether they were no
long ago entitled to an explanation from
him?
Now, as to the placing of illegal take!
on the books. The law says plainly tha
every taxpayer is entitled to exemption!
on two hundred dollars worth of persona
property Grant that the late Auditor
Herrick put the exemptions on the books
is there anything to show that he did no
intend to deduct the 5000 exemption.
from each taxpayers total amount at thu
time he paid up2 Ed. Herrick, we believe
was the last man who would have pu
upon the taxpayers any burden directly
in conflict with the law. Besides, even il
he found the exemptions on the hooks
was that any reason why the tax should
have been collected with his knowledge
from some taxpayers, who knew nothing
about the exemption law, while other.
who had knowledge of its existence, ane
who justly protested, were let off withou
payment?
And why was the illegal tax collected
for the next year, after MIR. Herrick'
death?
Now, because the writer has condemned
these things, and has persistently de.
manded that they be explained or excused
we ask Mr.. Armstrong if the flood of vile
personal abuse-writtcn either by him.
self or by an imported democrat for the
Winona Times-ls Is justi6able7 Through
the long years that have passed since We
both settled here, has the Record eye]
said word regarding your private acts,
True, you stated to gentleman from the
river country that you did not write the
attacks and believed they were hurting
you. But do you not know that the pub
lie knows that for a long time you have
held the financial welfare of the Times ir
the hollow of your hand, through your
public and private patronage, and that
when they published these things, they
knew they would please you? What, in
truth, down deep in your heart must be
your opinion of man who will con,
temptiously write of patriot, who died
in the uniform of the Union, as "his poo,
old dad?" What has the Record said tc
Justify it2 In the bribery and returning o.