The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-12-17
ETICK ANOTHER PIN.

YestEday Ths Republic isolated for inspection two
peculiar features q the Cardwel case. The list might
be mado Q long on, but two moro win do for the i'm
medigAs pcsent
Repgh1ea0 and their secret service in the Demo
e1ssFe cam have made an they could out of Chair
.ma9 refusal to crafty the plaintiffs attorney
BY going to Independence at great Inconvenience to
himsAf.
NJ 0abert declared repeatedly In the public prints
thak wh1e hs was willing to testify to anything he
knew. h stl did not intend to be 1erked about ct the
pleasure q these plotters. and particularly would not
put himself IN the hands Of men who were evidently
bent On injuring both him and his party as far as
poasbae. He MD. - he had 4 right to say. that he
VOID stand On Ids legal rights, and that If the gen.
tepea who pretended to want his deposition really
de&&d Il they could come to ST. Louis and take it.
why dA thsu not come to st Louis and take his
de3o(fton3 And why were they 30 especially anxious
to ednpd him to 90 to Independence or Kansas City:
II ~ possible that they had some concealed but
sp1cAl motive ff taking him there? Is It possible
that they had things 30 fixed up there that they
thdasht they could In some way put him at a disad-
va1tese7 l. It not rather strange that these gentle
M sshould b possessed Of such an overweening
an1ie1 % dag selbert 300 miles away, before a
nseHy q thar own choosing, who had shown a most
WT4i3g disposition to follow Mr.. Walsh's advice. and
III tgzinst both law and usage? Under the circum-
stah4s Was not M. SeibeFt fully justified in saying.
- ~ did, that II they wanted his deposition they
cod come to St Louis and take It? He said he was
ps3ae3y willing to give It here IL they wanted it.
A. Why not come to St Louis? The facilities for
t1A4nk dsposit5ons were certainly as good in st. Louis
- }k Independence To take the deposition here
wo&A have been in accordance with law and usage.
a1l.Wuu1d have been less expensive to the plaintiff.
NJ. WalGh did come to st Louis with an attachment
wit for M. Seibert, expecting, as he said, to resist
any application Eebert might make for a habeas
corpus. Since he was coming to St. Louis on this
Duchess. Why did he not bring a notice to take a
delpsition instead Of bringing an attachment for the
Mt6nen whoss testimony he pretended to be so
anlioO to have7
On the reform" theory Of the case, or on the
thsosy Of the plaintiffs injured reputation, there is
aoeeing to explain the peculiar attitude toward Chair
mai sefb1t Q plaintiffs witness.
Another phase Of the affair is the series Of curious
cotlddences on the particular day when Cardwell
INST Brown at Kansas City. It must be assumed that
Caldwell knew ct his attorneys intended visit to st. !
L0yis that day with the Constable who was to take
Chairman Seibeft under IN attachment. Remember
thaf th9e was no desperate hurry about capturing
Ar4 se1bert It was q week before the date fixed for
ag4n taking dispositions in Jackson County. Yet on
thak day. with Walsh In st Louis, suddenly rose ND
.B4uwn" IN Kansas City with his "dieni6ed sum-
Nd Hosezle walshs partner, was not notified. Mr..
Net. Ths ReDubljes Kansas City counsel, was not
nodaed. Gardwsl telephoned and telegraphed a few
tines to Walsh at st. Louis-must have had Walsh's
addess Of comse, and full knowledge Of his move
meqtk Cardwe1 was not compelled BY any agree
ment With Brown" to dismiss the suit that very day.
Any ordinary man. especially II he had been 30 COM
p3etely un6se hi hWyess direction that he had never
appQrd perDom1y ae the taking Of DISPOSITIONS,
would. under ths ordinary Circumstances Of q lawsuit,
have waited for the lawyers return next day before
throwing the case carelessly out Of court-and a case !
big with $4,000 worth Of soiled reputation, not to
spsak Of the mighty interests Of the Commonwealth
The hwyr had beforehand been pretty much the
U1sh clsa. An at oacs h W. ignored and wM left