The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-10-20
HE|NZE'S LYING ISLANDERS ARE REFUTED
Shores DGay REGARD
lbe|ous Attacks the evee and by Mr. tenze Regard
Minnie Heay Matter The Truth important Case
Editor of the Inter Mountain.

Editor Of the Inter Mountain.
The repeated libelous attacks upon me
personally, contained in Heinzc cam
paign3 sheet deserve little, if any, notice
except for the fact that they are made
with view to deceive the general pub
lie with respect to the conduct of the
Amalgamated Copper company, as party
interested directly or indirectly, in much
of the litigation involving mining prop
erty in Butte.
Heiaze furnishes the money required
for the publication of the Revcille, and
it is Heinzc who causes these SANDERS
to be circulated, although he has not yet,
to my knowledge, had the courage to
admit his connection with that sheet as
the responsible publisher of the same. Mr..
Heinze apparently prefers to pay some
one else to assume the criminal liability
attaching to the publication OF these
libels.
Repeated in a great variety of forms,
the specific accusations made against me
by Mr.. Heinze's organ, are of forging af
fdavits and inducing others to commit per-
jury, in the form of affidavits, for use
upon motion for new trial in the Minnie
Healy case, after it's decision in Henzcs
favor by Judge Harvey and that was
a party TO an alleged attempt 10 corrupt
Judge Harney in connection with the
Minnie Healy case.
| desire to say to those of the general
public who are not familiar with the rec
ord in the Minnie Healy case, and with
the history of that litigation, that these,
and all similar charges are unqualifcdly
false, and are known to Mr.. Henze, and
the disreputable tool who does his dirty
work. to be absolutely and unqualfedly
false. There was, indeed, an attempt made
to corrupt Judge Harvey in the Minnie
Healy case, but that attempt was made
directly by an employe of the M. O. p.
company, and in the interest of +. Angus
tus Heinze.
The public is already quite familiar with
the contents of the various affidavits filed
in support of the motion for a new trial
in the Minnie Healy case. These affi~
davits, in substance, charge that Mrs.
Brackett, an empoyc of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company importuned Judge
Harvey to decide the case in favor Of
Heinze, and that she accompanied her
solicitations with offers to lend him
money and with assurances that he would
be we'll taken care of in case the decision
were favorable. This corrupt solicitation
and attempt to influence or bribe the Judge
was in writing, and the letter or ktters
containing her negotiations with him on
this subject are set forth in the affidavits
mentioned, and are now part of the
record in the Minnie Healy case.
Neither Judge Harvey nor Mrs. Brack-
ett has seen fit to deny under oath the
facts stated in these afidavits. g.
1t will be remembered that at about the
time these afidavits were filed an earnest
attempt was made to take the depositions
of both Judge Harvey and Mrs. Bracket
and thus obtain their own sworn testi-
mony upon the subject matter of these
charges. Judge Harvey and My. Braskett
both refused to be sworn or testify, upon
the advice of Judge Mediation, chief coun-
sci for Mr.. Heinze. and the supreme
court held that they could not be com
PEELED to give their depostions. Since
neither Judge Harvey nor Mrs. Bracket
was willing to be sworn, or make any
statement under oath concerning the facts,
4 became necessary 10 prove the same