Omaha daily bee., 1897-04-14
CASE DE RtNk pERJuRY.

! 4
1t is the privilege of every member of
the legislature to say what he plcascs
on the floor of Tie house of which he
is a member without subjcctirg himself
to the penalties imposed by law FOR
4 slandcr or libel 1t is another matter,
however, for him to testify falsely under
/ oath before a legislative Investigating
! committee. When Edward +. Howell
/ asserted on the floor Of ;hc senate that
! the editor of The Bee had appealed TO
him to support the gambling ordinance
passed with Howclfs vote by the Omaha
city council he knowingly coined Il
fasnhood. but one for which he could
not be called to account. When, how
ever, Edward II. Howell repeated under
oath what he had asserted in the SEN
n te he laid himself liable to prosecution
for the crime of perjury.
Not only lid Howell testify falsely,
but he convicted himself by contradict
ing his own testimony. First called be-
fore the investigating committee Edward
Il. Howell testified as follows. according
to the official stcnographcr's record:
Odd any one solicit you to vote for
this ordinance to which you refer? A.-No,
sir.
Ono gamblers asked you TO? A.-No
one
When recalled before the committee
the following evening Mr.. Howell testi-
fed as follows concerning his vote for
the gambling ordinances:
Al think I did 1t at the solicitation of
the editor of The Bee.
Own you swear you did that at the
solicitation OF the editor of The Bee? Al
will swear / was solicited to do SO by the
editor of The Bee.
Own you name him? Al say the
editor of The Bee. your father.
Oils name, II you please? Al think
it is Edward Rosewater.
Q.--Was there any one present when he so
licited you to vote for that ordinance? A.
Why during my term of four years as coun-
Gilman 1t was very common thing for me
on important matters to go and talk to your
father about those things, which l did a great
many tines l guess you know l used to
come there. and think had one converse
ton with him about that before that ordi
think at another time in the mayors office.
Q.--Was there any one present? Al
think Bems was there.
Here is II fiat contradiction. On one
day Howell afirms under oath that no
one solicited him to vote for the gam
bling ordinance. and oil the second day,
in order to Smirch the editor of The
Bee he atiirms under oath that the lat
ter had solicited him to vote for it. And
yet while Howell was making this as
sertion he must have known that the
truth was Just the opposite.
Not only did the editor Of The Zee
never solicit Howell or anybody else to
support the gambling ordinance, but lie
protested against it, both privately and
publicly. He not merely demonstrated
against it before its passage, but de-
nounccd it after its passage. The views
o' the editor Of The Bee were expressed
in the following article, which appeared
in the editorial columns of The Bee May
10, 1892, under tIle heading 'Shall Gam
bling BE LiccnSed:"
An ordinance has been introduced in the
city council TO license gambling by impos-
ing periodic lines upon keepers of gambling
houses and men who make 4 living out of
gambling. This is nothing more nor less
than an attempt to nullfy the criminal code
relating to gambling and make the mayor
and police judge and police force aiders and
abettors In the defiant violation OF the law,
which they are sworn and in duty bound to
enforce.
The plea in favor of the proposed ordi-
nance Is that gambling, like prostitution, is
natural vice which no law can eXtirpate and
therefore tho most practical way Of dealing
with gambling would be to egali2e. regulate
and supervise it. The assumption that
gambling is an inherent vice on a plano with
the social evil is not we'll founded. The
propensity OF men and women to amuse
themselves with social games in which chance
plays a part should not be confounded with
vicious disposition Of a very small per-
cenage of people who are drawn into
gambling dens by the tempting opportunity
to win large sums at the gaming table
But the social evil has never been licensed
in Omaha. 1t is merely tolerated and the
fines imposed do not legalize it or in any
way nullify the statute or compromise the
officers Of the law. There never has been
an ordinance even introduced to license dis
orderly houses and no law-abidng citizen
would countenarce such an ordinance SO long
as the laws of this state make the keeping
Of such resorts criminal Offense.
The effect of the proposed ordinance would
certainly be mischievous and demoralizing
1t would advertise Omaha abroad as a law
defying community in whlIh gambling dens
were licensed in defiance to state laws The
nero fact that no gambler has been sent to
the penitentiary since gambling was made
felony affords no excuse for letting down the
bars and running riot with open gambling
houses, into which hundreds OF wage
workers would flock to drop their scanty
savings and earnings that should be given
TO their families.
The gambling law is doubtless too severe
in its penalties, and its weakest spot is the
provision that makes the plucked victim
equally punishable with the keeper and
capper that heeced him. These defects of
the law can and should be amended by
the next legislature, but so long as there
is a law against gambling the council has
no right to nullify or clrcumvent It, Sup
pose the ordinance licensing gambling by
providing for periodical fines should be
Hl,.,I