The Somerset reporter., 1902-09-04
Mr.. Covers Reply to Mr. Leech.

upon erroneous information and without
willful representation, but his neglect,
before going into print, TO submit his
charges to me to ascertain whether |
could give any information or explana-
ton, his persistent reiteration after his
statements have been proven by the rec
ords to be false, his utterance of other
statements that are equally false and
without foundation, his quoting me as
saying things which | did not say and
perversion of things which | did say,
might reasonably lead a consistent and
conservative person to believe that he is
not actuated solely for the development
of truth and the promotion of temper
ance. Is it possible that he has any
other motive? Is it possible that the
stings of his defeat for the nomination
for sheriff, have any connection with his
coming out as democratic stump speak.
er, and with the publication of his effu-
sons in the democratic papers of the
state9 Is it possible that democratic
funds are paying the postage on his Lang
and Holman letters?
| will call attention to few facts that
the public may judge for themselves
whether Mr.. Leech is deeeiying and mis-
representing matters to the people of
Somerset County: After he made his
attack upon me | wrote an open letter in
reply, disproving his statements by the
records That letter was printed in the
papers and copies of it were made and
circulated throughout the county. 1t
was the only letter that have written
Mr.. Leech replied to it through the Lew
iston Journal. In his reply he said Mr..
Cover says that he only mol pressed four
cases, but states that he mol pressed the
first of these because he found it on the
docket when he assumed Office If the
voters will look at my letter they will see
that Mr.. Leech is again incorporating
what | said, and that the reason l gave
for mol pressing the case was because it
had been settled by my predecessor,
Mr.. small, while he was county attorney
and not because | found it upon the
docket as stated by Mr.. Leech.
Again Mr.. Leech has publicly stated
that the Harding delegation was elected
in the Madison republican caucus by
'rummies". Let us look at the facts
and see whether or not he is again mis-
representing them. 1t is we'll known
fact that in the town caucus held in Mad
ison by the republican voters of that
town, two tickets were in the field, one
for the nomination of Mr.. Harding for
sheriff, and the other for the nomination
of Mr. Leech. 1t is also well known that
Mr.. Leech was especially active in that
caucus in distributing ballots for the list
i.,EA dali 70 l.
sheriff If you will look at the records
lit can be found in the Maine Register)
you will find that the whole number of
republican votes cast for governor in the
town of Madison two years ago was 267
1t is also we'll known that in the Hard
ing Leech caucus there were 274 repub-
lican votes cast. From that fact, we
may fairly assume that the republicans
of Madison were interested in the fight
between Messrs Harding and Leach and
were out in the force. The result of
that caucus was that the Leech ticket
received only fifty lime (5e) votes, while
the Harding ticket received two hundred
and fifteen (215). VIII any reasonable
person believe that out of the 274 votes
cast in the caucus, that the 215 men,
farmers, laboring men, merchants and
mechanics who voted for Mr.. Harding
are "rummies' as claimed by Mr. Leech?
Again,-Mr. Leech says that certain
grand jurymen (2) told him that certain
things were said and done by me in the
grand jury room relative to liquor mat
ters. Every grand juryman in open
court, before he enters upon the dis
charge of his high and important duties,
takes the following oath: "7he State s
counsel, your tello,cs', and your o,on, gov
shall keep secret, 80 help you God" Is
1t possible that Mr.. Leech has made
these men violate their oaths as graud
jurors by telling him anything that &C.
Cured in the grand jury room? If his
statement is true, he has, and has rem
dered them liable to severe penalties
Does he consider that honorable conduct
on his part and will the people of Som.
erset County consider il honorable? A
grand Juror who will violate his oath by
telling what was said or done, will not
hesitate to misstate as to what was said
or done. AS to what was said or done
in the grand jury room, am under the
same obligation to keep secret, but can
say that the things which he states,
we're not said or done. His statement
that l carried "the court records into
the grand jury room and discussed how
much each (rumseller) could stand for a
fine", Is not only untrue, but is absurd,
preposterous and ridiculous. Any rea-
sonable man, whether he knows me or
not, will not believe that l am fool
enough to do such thing as that in the
presence of a grand jury of twenty-three
men, republicans, democrats and prohi-
bitionists, with political campaign ap-
preaching and candidate for re- cleo
ton. Ordinary common sense would
prevent my so doing, and as the grand
jury have nothing whatever to do with
fines, there is no earthly reason why
should do so. Further than that never
assume to 'instruct' grand jury as to
what indictments they shall or shall not
find, as that is something resting wholly
within their own province, and neither
the county attorney or the judge has a
right to direct them. His statement
that said 81 had no sympathy with the
people of Madison who were trying to
enforce the prohibitory laws, Is untrue.
l never made any such statement and
never entertained such feeling What /
did say and now say was this: In April
1901 after came into office most cruel
attack was made upon my predecessor,
Mr.. Small, because he would not yield
his official judgment in compliance with
the request of certain men in Madison.
Mr.. Small had been known to me since
boyhood as an honest. conscientious,
temperance man. He had stood at the
head of one of the greatest fraternal or