The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-10-17
Charges Against sheriff.


against sheriff Van lie Vanter III connection
with thu ease. Steve Lyts in his affidavit
swears that Hhoriiy after the time ne made
the affidavit by virtue If which Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Hart and Deputy
Eaeyn Wilson were cited for contempt ST
court. and HF. fiafs further cited TO show
cause why h. should not he diSbarTaa from
the practice Of his profession. he eas cali
Ell into the private office Of Sheriff Van de
Nanter ileputy Sheriff James L. Wilson
being present st the time.
Lyia says Van de Nanter asked him why
he had made the affidavit. 10 which he
claims he replied that II contained nothing
replied that he Q-ytsl would be sorry for
what he had done. He further asserts
tina, Van DE Vantsr offered 10 extend him
courtesaes during his confinement in the
jail that ne would not otherwise receive
if he would Withdraw the affidavit. f.yts
gays that he had this conversation with
Van De Vanter after Judge Jacobs had
forbidden any orc 20 talk 10 him aside
from his nttarnsVa
The second charge made agains, Sheriff
Van De tanter is that when Charles W.
Jacobs court and justified on Steve Iyts'
bend. h@ was met By Sheriff Van Be Van
ter outside the court room, who offered 70
bet him suit Of clothes that the three de-
PENDANTS would he convicted and another
suit Of clothes that If I.yta were released
on bond he would not be- present when
Is made In the af',fsvits Of Attorneys pore
and Shipley. both OF whom claim they
heard Van De Nanter offer 70 make the
two bets.
W. ~ IIyts, father OF the defendant Lvts
ewears that when HIS son became Involved
in trouble. he camo back from Alaska 10
help him. He says that he solicited many
people to 80 upon his soma bond and that
each and all OF them refused to do no.
stating that they could not afford n incur
the displeaFure Of the sheriff and prosecut-
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Walter p
Fulton also comes in for share OF the
etand against Phillips n, the preliminary
hearing Of The latter. and Una, neither MIR
FULTON nor Judge Cam advised him OF his
fights In the premises
The affldavits set forth that :wo OF the
main witnesses for the prosecution are
Sheriff Van he Vanter and Deputy sher-
IN Wilson both ~ whom Il Is alleged are
strongly pretudiced against the defendants
II liz set forth that Van re Vanter. despite
his being n witness. has an official part
Go perform I'm the selection Of the Jury pam
e. That VIII try the case II Il 30 tried In
this county. ana that Wilson has been en-
gagged I'm Supporting the other witnesses
for the state These are urged as reasons
why the case should be transferred to an
other county for trial
The general charge IL made that officials
connected both With the sheriws ofice ana
prosecuting attorneys offce have repeated
ly made statements that the defendants
are guilty. and that they wifi ha con-
victea, "a we'll as other pretndictal state
ed IN manufacturing a streng prejudice In
this county against the defendants
Newspapers Are Attacked.
nut 1t was upon tha newspapers tina, the
principal attack 81 tho def ntantS was
made. 10 begin with. slac affidavit az Al
torney Morris incorporated every stem.
editorial or reference Of any 1Tt made hy
the post-IutelligcEceT upon the l.yt&- I'ait-
ps-Esrlin case, not excepting the alleged
attack made unon Judge Jacosss in refer
to atf A.
manner in dealing win criminals. All this
new>parer matter was read q Jndge ia
cohs by Attorney Dore.
The affidavit az Attorney Shsp}cv con-
tanned all the uttarances of au evening pa
Per upon tile ease. ana this. too was read
% the court Including editorials IN de-
Tense ~ Judge Jacobs, EYetstbing that
both newspapers printed with reference In
the Hart-NIlson contempt case Was also
read.
The defendant phllits. n the AFFIDAVIT
which he made. ssys that yOnaors II the
effect that Re Intended pleading guilty
were Sc, af'oat ard published 81 the uews-
papers With view 80 tnturing hiu. He
says that he never had any intention Of
pleading guilty, ard has Always sGoUtiy
maintained his Innocence.
In his argument To sha coUrs Attorney
ncre attacked both newspapers with great
NtSer. He said both az ~ had ta6oret!
- inc!tc q feeling ~ prejudice sxafust tAe
de<sn9aatA and rsader certain their convio-
tietl.
+N ~ - k*'tNt AFff&Sb fkt+iu Al
article ~ fhs tsina!Bal L-aw Eepo.ter
weleh Was an attack usoa ,ite actions ~
newspapers III connection w4th criminal
GASES. The stst = this argument; Was ta4g
newspapers, ~ stvsTx alleged facts tn COR.
nSoiion wisa criminal cases prsjEdlced the
rsshts ~ tAs defendants ana rendered iIs-
cor<ieae an Impartial trlal
Mr.. lfege said that - vas i-3gesst~te -
get d jury II King county IAat had not
READ of the case IN ths pagers srf formed
sn impression cr og@32iaa concerning .hS
merits - taa casa f.teFv nias, Woman
and child ia the county. h. a$sew.r4 haA
read ~ the case - TIE p.suvss asa aAd
ssrseG az Gnlascyaeie 0g.al>a S.. lac Gc-
PENDANTS.
Mr.. McEIroy Nepttes.