Sunday morning globe., 1901-12-01

say that he must stand trial nor did it
suggest in terms that he should.
Doubtless, the board would have pre-.
ferred him to remain without trial
on the second indictment because
while that indictment stood II fur
nished splendid excuse for failure to
act In his case. But it is true that
the members Of the board did call at
tentiOn to the fact that there was an
other indictment pending when they
referred to mis- case in conversation
with gentlemen who represented him
and were presenting appeals in his be.
half.
Manifestly his friends knew, in view
Of the expressions OF the members Of
this board, that so long as that indict.
ment stood he had no chance for pa.
role. If the board were frank 1t would
have said that the other indictment
was not a barrier to his parole that
he would not be paroled even II that
were removed as II subsequently was
by his acquittal. But we beg to ask
you as a lawyer and a man Of common
sense, would not the statement by the
board that the pending indictment was
an obstacle to his parole suggest to
you, II you represented Patrick FL.
lott that 1t was essential to have him
tried on that indictment?
In the second paragraph following
the statement from the board which
we have quoted It is said that "Mr.
Patrick Elliott has served but little
more than three years Of the 20 years
sentence for manslaughter."
Jhen that board paroled r. X. Paige.
whose term Of imprisonment began on
the same day as that OF Patrick FL
lott, IL announced that Paige had
served five years. In stating that Paige
served five years the board only did
Justice to him, because the legal al
lowance for good behavior made his
term OF imprisonment equivalent to
five years. But in speaking Of Pat
rick Elliott's confinement the same
board which properly credited Paige
with FIVE years, describes Patrick Ell
liott's like term Of Imprisonment as
being only three years. This fairly
illustrates the biased feeling Of the
board.
In relation to W. J. Elliott the board
is correct in stating that Varney, the
man who threw the vitriol in William
j. Elliott's eye, cannot be paroled.
Under the laws he may be pardoned
but cannot be paroled.
In our communication we erred as to
that and spoke of his being paroled by
the board in question, when we should
have spoken OF a rumor that he was
to be pardoned.
To that extent and only to that ex-
tent Is this document from your parole
board truthful in it's reference to the
case Of w. j. Elliott. In every other
respect IL would be difficult to con-
ceiye a more cowardly, brutal and in
famouslyuntruthful accusation against
a human being than the members Of
this board have made against the un-
fortunate w. ]. Elliott, Of whom the
law constitutes them official guardians.
They write: "In the case Of w J.
Elliott this board has no authority or
responsibility; but in order that no
portion Of the letter under considera-
tion may be passed unnotlced by us,
and to meet the unjust and unkind in
that W. j. Elliott is being
kept in confinement and in danger Of
becoming blind, in reward for his de.
votion to law and order in exposing
an attempt Of the prisoners to escape, |
we beg leave to state that no such
event has occurred during this admin
istration; but upon inquiry, we are
informed that a short time prior there
to W. j. Elliott participated In a plot
Of prisoners to escape: that he fur
nished plans and drawings in aid of
the same and that before its consum.
nation, either from fear Of detection
or to obtain favor, he revealed the
plot through another party, leaving his
accomplices to suffer the conse-
quences."
"Varney was suspected Of being in
this plot. At that time he and w. ].
Elliott were bosom friends. The
trouble which subsequently arose be-
tween them and which eliminated in
Varney throwing vitriol, had no rela.
tion TO the attmpted escape, but grew
out Of a conflict Of authority between
the two men in the department inI
which they we're both engaged. !
Elliott's action Varney was
deprived, one after another, OF all the
he had enjoyed as a trusty
prisoner, and added to the losses, the
ieers OF Elliott over Varney's downfall !
so angered him that he assaulted El-
lott and threw the vitriol."
THE statements herein made con-
cerniug w. j Elliott are not offered !
as charges against him, but are sub
mitted as the best information obtain |
able touching the reference to him in |
the letter transmitted to u.s."
But upon inquiry we are informed |
that a short time prior thereto, W. |
j. Elliott participated in a plot OF priss
oners to escape; that he furnished
plans and drawing in aid OF thfs same.
and that before its consur.hmation.
either from fear Of detection or to OBJ.
tain favor, he revealed THE plot through
another party, leaving his accomplices
to suffer the consequences. Extract.
OF whom did your board make in
quiry? BY whP6m was II informed? II
never induiSfed Of Elliott, in order to
near mis- statement in relation to this
most gsrave accusation which Il on.
cially makes against him. II never
inqp OF Daniel Creedon (foreman)
10 Whom Mr.. Elliott gave The informa-
JEon about the plot OF prisoners to
ESCAPE. IL never made inuuirv NJ al.