Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-11-12
NOT SHOT FOR DURB|N
Governor Beckham, OF Kentucky.
Replies to Letter OF the
Indiana Executive.
Says Durbin is Accessory After
the Fact to the Goebel
Murder.
Declares Action is the Result OF
Political Bars ain Before
His Election.


lBeckham last night addressed to Gov
ernor Durbin of Indiana letter re
.Iplying to the criticism by the execu-
sltive of the courts and officials OF Ken
lucky in his recent letter refusing &c
honor the requisition for Taylor and
Finley. wanted for alleged completely
lin the assassination of Governor
Goebel He severely arraigns Governor
Durbin for his refusal, charging that in
doing so he violated his oath of office
to support the constitution of the
United States, and that he became "a
| famous crime in the history of this
state, the cowardly and dastardly muir
der of an eminent and distinguished
citizen of Kentucky"
The Kentucky executive charges that
Governor Durbin's action in refusing
was the result of the political bargains
made before his election to office, and
charaterizes the charges against the
courts and officials of Kentucky as
clanderous and inexcusable misrepre-
sensations.
He takes the stand that the COVER
nor of state has no discretionary
powers but only ministerial power In
the honoring of legally drawn requisi-
tons from other states. and this is
taken here as an Indication that steps
will shortly be taken in the courts to
compel Durbin by mandamus to honor
the acquisitions. If such proceedings
are Instituted they will be in the courts
of Indiana and taken on appeal to the
supreme court.
In addressing Governor Durbin, Gov
ernor Beckham says:
Frankfort, KY, Nov. Sir: Your
refusal to honor the acquisitions some
time ago sent by me, asking for the ex-
tradition of w. S. Taylor and Charles
Finley, fugitives from justice from this
state, charged with being accessories to
the murder of William Goebel. was not
unexpected, but the remarkable letter
with which you accompanied the re-
turn of the papers was indeed q sur
prise to me, and I sincerely regret the
necessity of this reply. 1t is true
had been reliably informed that you
had incurred campaign obligations
which committed you to the protection
of these two valuable adjuncts to your
political fortunes, and that they had
been promised immunity from arrest
under reauisitions from Kentucky au-
thorities in the event of your election
as governor. This information has
been confirmed by your conduct and
>1atr lrNF
Under which these two men seem to
have rested since your incumberance of
the Office. You are at least entitled to
the credit of having faithfully carried
out your reputed agreement with them.
in doing so you have violated
your oath of office and brought dis
credit upon the high position you hold.
But even with this understanding of
your embarrassing position, confronted,
as you We're, on the one side by the
law and justice, and on the other by
political bargain, could not
believe that you would so far forego
the dignity and obligations of your Of
flee and the courteous relations that
exist among the chief executives Of the
various states, as to go out of your
way to offer gratuitious insult to the
people of Kentucky and to cast re-
Election upon the courts and public Of
ficials of the state. If these slanderous
charges had come from you as one in
dividual then they would be treated
with the silent contempt they so justly
deserve, but as they come from you as
the governor of a great state | shall
not hesitate to hold you up to public
scorn and show how unjust and UNI
founded are the willful and inexcusable
Misrepresentation in your letter.
Passing on from showing how you
have diresarded the constitution and
law of your country. / will proceed to
show how you have perverted the
record in the recent trial of Caleb Pow
ers and sought by such action to bring
discredit upon an honorable and up
right judge, whose life of public service
has been unstained by a single dis
act, and whose character as
a man and as jurist stands unim-
peached among the good people of this
state.
You criticise the recent trial of Pow
ers and denounce Judge Cantrill for his
instructions to the jury. You say In
your letter he instructed it that it
might convict on the testimony of one
alleged accomplice, if that testimony
was corroborated by that of another
alleged accomplice; that it might con-
Wet the defendant for the act of an