The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1896-10-29

t''SSNa 'aSs oA~ a"S " " III
er and taxpayer OF our county. The first
two men mentioned have feathered their
nests IN good shape, as the Commission
ers' reports will show. Have they not
had the Office long enough?
l am ready aud willing to prove all the
within statements.
Respectfully Yours,
j. w. HURLEY,
Madison, s. D.
MR.. MURRAY's REPLY.
To the voters OF Lake county: The
foregoing campaign roorbach has just
come under my observation and l am
informed that its author, Jerry w. Hur-
Icy, erstwhile ~saloonkeeper, has, or in
tends to circulate it widely throughout
the county for the purpose, of course, of
influencing voters against myself and
Mr.. McGovern, the peoples candidate
for sheriff. 1t is apparent aver to the
casua observer who is at all familiar
with Mr.. Hurley's literary accomplish
ments, that someone else prepared the
article for him and this may account for
the absolute falslty Of the statements.
Ii what Mr.. Hurley says is true. then it
is just as true that l have violated not
only my oath Of Office but the law as
we'll, and if have in any respect viola
ted either to the knowledge Of Mr.. Hur.
ley, then 1t is as certain as death that
this same Hurley would lose no time in
commencing criminal as we'll as impeach-
ment pr oceediugs against me. He has,
since about January, 1895, learned to
his sorrow tn at "the way of the trans
gressor is hard; and he says 'it is all
the fault of Murray and McGovern."
He has swoln vengeance, and if he
knew OF any law l have violated he
would lose no time in institutIng GRIM
inal proceedings against me.
As for the first statement, l will say:
At no time, either prior or subsequent
to the election of 1894, did l have or
make any agreement, express or i'm
piled, with any ~saloonkeeper in Madison
or elsewhere, nor with any other person
whonsoever, by the terms of which l
was to receive, either directly or indi-
rectly, the sum of $50 per month, nor
any other sum whatever, "for the priv.
lege of running q saloon" nor by the
terms Of which I was to give notice of
the commencement of Injunction suits
to the %violators of the prohibition law,
nor to others for them, and Mr.. Hurley's
statement to the effect that I did is ab-
s~olutely and unqualiiedly false.
Second. II l was elected with the
assistance of SAID saloonkeeper," then it
was because 'said saloonkeeper" used
his assistance and influence against me,
for it is a we'll known fact that every
"blind pig" man in town supported
Judge Holdridge.
Third. Mr.. Hurley's statement that
a friend OF mine went ito this same sa-
loonkeeper and stated that for 800 per
month he could arrange matters so that
he could do business" and that "for
three months he paid the regular dues
OF 800" is as false as any lie that was
ever uttered or published 30 far as my
knowledge goes. No friend of mine,
nor any other person, was over author
lied or requested by me TO- make any
such agreement, no such agreement
ever was made to my knowledge, nor
did "thls same saloonkeeper" or any
other saloonkeeper, or any other person,
ever pay me, or any one for me, 500 or
any other sum for any such purpose as
indicated by MIR. Hurley mol for any lille
gal or unlawful purpose.
Fourth. 1t is true that in June, 1895,
Mr.. Hurley circulated a petition, and in
July Of the same year presented 1t TO the
county commissioners, requesting them
to instruct the states attorney "when
any action is commenced against any
parties under the intoxicating liquor
law" that a bond be first given to pro-
tect the county against costs; and, also,
at the same session a petition was pre-
sented to the commissioners requesting
them in effect to give Nj. Hurley a mo-
nopoly Of the whisky business in this
county. I paid no attention to either
petition any further than to request the
commissioners to refer me to the law au.
thorizing me to require security for
costs. ] have no such right or authori-
ty and in this matter have ~endeavored
to do what I believed to be my duty. I
have not "been heaping up costs on the
people," 1t 10 the truth, and the records
will verify my statement, that the Of.
forts 70 enforce the prohibition law
have not cost the county one cent O
or less, and that there has been collect
ed from the violators of the Law and
paid to the county, in excess Of all costs
the county has paid, something over s58,
besides judgments in favor Of the coun-
ty which may be collected, amounting to
over $4OO. II our drug stores ara "run