The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-28

In his speech at the Ninth ward meeting
Saturday night Mr.. Hoffman gave little
variety TO his keynote speech by trying TO
answer the charges made against him by
the committee appointed to investigate his
record as prosecuting attorney. The word
charges" hardly fits the case. as the re-
port of the committee is simply a presenta-
ton Of facts Instead, therefore, of an
swering charges Mr.. Holtzmans speech
was an attempt 10 explain his record.
Charges can be denied and the denial
fetal record cannot be disposed of by
denial. and can only be met by some sort
OF explanation. The facts presented In the
committees report, copied word for word
and figure by figure from the official rec
ord, with references to page. entry and
on Mr.. Hoffman to explain why he did
not perform his duty as prosecuting attor-
ney. These extracts from the record
showed that during his four years as pros
ecutor there were 800 cases of violation of
the liquor law on the docket, of which sew
by Mr.. Holtzman 100 were indefinitely post
poned by the prosecutor and thirty-six were
never brought to trial, making 226 cases
that were wiped Off the docket out of a
total of 800 filed. OF the entire number
only twenty-five were brought TO trial, and
of these there were only eleven convictions.
During the same period there were thirty
a. ~ linz
laws, of which three were nollied, twenty
were indefinitely postponed by the pros
ecutor, eight pleaded guilty and five were
found not guilty. Not one was convicted
through the efforts of the prosecutor.
Such facts as these do not need to be
accompanied by charges. Upon their face
they constitute an arraignment far more
| damaging than any charges could be- That
Mr.. Hoffman realized this is shown by the
fact that in the next speech he made, with
in twelve hours after the report of the COM
mittee was published he filed his defense.
and what defense it was. 1t is safe to
say that no public official shown by the
records to have been derelict in his duty
ever made weaker one. 1t consisted of an
attack on the personnel of the committee
| and abuse by them for publishing the facts.
Mr. Holtzman did not deny the entries
made by the clerk of the court, of which
he was prosecutor, for he could not. He
did not question the accuracy of a single
figure or date. He did not deny that time
after time he had sponged the docket clean
by dismissing liquor cases by the score.
He did not claim that the committee had
misrepresented a single fact He simply
! abused the committee. WHO are these
men?" he asked, as if they were on trial
and not he. II can dispose of them In very
short ORDER" and he disposed Of them by
saying that one is the law partner of Fred
Joss, another is treasurer of the Republican
| city committee, and the third is president
of the Park Board under the present ad-
ministration. This was Mr.. Holtzmans
| answer to an array of facts copied from the
court records. which, if they had been
brought out while he was in office, would
have caused a demand for his impeach-
ment. The substance of his charge against
the members of the committee is that they
are Republicans. No doubt every one of
| them will plead guilty to the charge, but
that does not detract from the force of
the facts they have brought out They did
| not make Mr.. Holtzmans record; he made
it himself. They did not make the entries
in the docket; they were made by the clerk
of the court. All they did was to dig out,
| copy, compile and publish the facts. That
they are Republicans or even partisans has
nothing to do with the case, and the fact
that Mr.. Hoffman did not attempt any
other defense than this shows that he has
none. BY his own record he stands con-
victed. either of gross neglect or gross be-
trayal of official duty in the interest OF
favored classes of law breakers.