Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-02-19
|lUIIlE Tells Of CLARK
Editor futile Writes an Open Letter
Regarding the Claims Of j. c.
Clark.
His View Of the Case, and Statements
Of Facts in Connection with
the Case.

y OsSSs3S1dlh vi
Mandan, that a few facts taken from
the records will enlighten the public.
Before anyone gives money to him for
his defense in the courts, it is we'll
that they should know~what they are
giving it for.
In November, 1899, Mr.. Clark was
appointed by the county commissioners
as a constable, to fill a vacancy. There
had been a number Of horses stolen in.
the southern part of the county, and
Clark represented to the commission.
ers that if he were appointed constable,
he would go after the horse thieves.
It is unnecessary to say that he let the
horse thieves severely alone. CIark's
purpose in securing the appointment
was not to enforce the prohibition law,
because he has at no time been in sym
pathy with the law. He secured the
appointment to get blood money from
blind piggers in the county. In due.
course Clark secured parties to make
complaints against violators of the pro-
hibition law and under the processes
issued in these cases, he seized a lot
OF liquors and other property and
closed up four places.
In one OF these places he closed he.
took possession, OF a slot machine, be-
longing to one McAuliffe. He. in
formed the owner of this machine that
he would return it to him for SIS. This
sum was paid. This was corrupt ac-
ton No. l.. He seized some property
in a place kept by one Harry Grumple.
This he sold back to Grumple. Clark
also unlawfully, corruptly and with
out authority Of law, violated his oath
as q constable, and sold and disposed
of large quantities of intoxicating
liquors taken possession of by him,
and appropriated the proceeds thereof
to his own use. 81
Charges covering these grounds were
made against Clark in a suit conn
meffced in the district court on the
10th Of July, 1900, with the additional
charge Of habitual drunkenness, and
he was temporarily suspended as con
stable until the Isl could be tried on
its merits. It was within the power
OF Clark, as much as that of the plain
tiff, to force that case to trial at the
next term Of court by serving on coun-
sci for the prosecution a notice of trial.
This he has never done yet. He has
never taken any action in the case to
force it to a trial except to write let
tiers to the newspapers. His term ex-
pired January LIST, 1901, and conse-
quently the plaintiffs had no object in
trying the case, the object of which
was to GUST him from Office, as he was
out anyhow January LIST, 1901.
In Clark's letters to the papers, he
represents that he has a large amount
OF fees coming to him he cannot col
lect. This is absolutely false. He
put in a claim for fees amounting to
about $1,000. These costs were after
wards taxed by the court and upon
such taxation w. P. Miller appeared
for Mr.. Clark and after a full hearing
Of the controversy the court allowed
Clark 500, which sum he has been
paid, and Clark's receipts are now on
file for the money. 1t is to be taken
for granted that his counsel felt that
he recovered all the costs he was en-
titled to. r. moi, an appeal would
have been taken to the supreme court.
It might be added that Clark,s adj
venture in the enforcement OF the pro-
hibition law was solely for the pur-
pose OF making money out of these
cases, and before the costs were taxed
by the court he offered to sell out his
entire interests in these cases and in
the prohibition law for $4,000, on the
payment Of which by the alleged pig
gers he offered to return all the prop
erty and liquors which he had In his
possession.
Some months ago Clark issued a doc
ument stating that among other
things Indian Agent Bingenheimer.
was grossly immoral For issuing
this statement he was indicted for
libel last December, and this case now