The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1902-11-28

criticize the methods employed they
should inform themselves and not at
tempt to mislead the public by their
inexcusable Ignorance.
In order to malign the Officers, they
resort to statements without founda-
tIon OF truth. With only mischievous-
ness in view they question the SINGER
Ity Of the prosecuting attorney. 1t is
distasteful to them that a man has
been found who Is willing and is help
ing to rid the county of places which
appeared so Objectionable and obnox-
ious to them before the election, but
which, in fact, they loved, and love to-
day, sufficiently we'll to frequent.
That Eugede Newsome should make
complaint beforea Justice in the reg
ular way as provided for by the law
quoted at the beginning of this article
and that the Justice should issue his
warrants in compliance with the law,
as stated above, ought not to be a sub
ject Of criticism by the News, but
since that sheet has found those acts
a basis to enter objections, as would
the criminal, 1t Is conclusive that the
shoe fits them too tight. 1t would
appear from statements that the
laws quoted above are objected to by
! the News and it has by its utteances
put itself on record as no respector Of
law, or In other words CLASHES itself
as an outlaw.
The Justice is the sole judge, as
seen by the law already quoted, Of the
credlbility Of the complainant and as
the proceedings in the complaints
made by Newsome were regular and
conformed strictly to the law on the
subject, his action in issuing the war
rants is not subject for criticism. 1t
is not in the province of Others to
place themselves in contempt Of court
and not be guilty.
That Newsome should 20 from the
Jail to the prosecuting attorneys office
to make complaint and swear out a
warrant against yolators of the law is
not an innovation in such matters,
! but Of common practice. The News
objects to this, however, because it
does not know any better and shows
its supreme ignorance and its utter
disregard for Fairness in making such
acts matter for criticism. 1t will
fully overlooks the universal practice
in this respect in its eagerness to OBJ
struct the enforcement Of the laws Of
the land.
1t is the privilege of a Justice to re-
ceye complaint and issue warrants
! anywhere in the county and he does
not have to condne himself to his own
district in such matters as commended
by the News. II that paper does not
know this, it is high time that it in
form itself before undertaking to
teach the people along that line, and
fit does know this, it is time 1t
should cease to disseminate false doc
/ trne and wilful fabrications.
In the eyes of the law Newsome was
in jail, when he appeared in the prose-
cutting attorneys office, since he was
in the custody Of the sheriff or one Of
his representatives, and, therefore,
there was no violation of law in that
and no impropristy. In this connec-
ton the criticism of the News is
wholly unfounded and here again it
manirests its culpable ignorance and
its malicious intent.
In Wiseman' case he was confronted
by his accuser because the state was
the one that accused him. The con-
stitutional provision does not mean
what the News SO maliciously and
purposely construes it TO mean, but to
the contrary signifies something en-
tIrely different. There is no such
thing as prosecuting witness in a
criminal case and the prosecuting at
torney has the sole right to examine
any witness he pIeases or refuse to ex-
anime any witnesses he chooses not to
examine. Neither the Justice nor the
defense can compel him to produce
such evidence as lie does not desire TO