Amador ledger., 1903-10-02
wilful Suppression of Facts.

efIy Was unloDceu, ne having no means
to do it to protect his mining ditches
and Andrews had declined to assist
him. The third ballot stood II to l in
favor of acquittal, and the jury was
discharged.
The above facts are taken from the
Ledger. That paper, however, failed
to say that the one man who wanted
to convict this old and decrepit hermit
was Richard Webb, the editor of the
Ledger. He held out against the IL
stubborn men and hung the jury,
nesssitating another trial and more
expense to the county, though he knew
conviction impossible. He represented
the law and evidence in that case as
much as be represents the taxpayers in
the McCauley case.
Poor Old Lonely!-Ione Echo.
An editor who does not hesitate to
send forth a garbled, distorted state
ment like the above, for the purpose OF
gratifying his own malicious dlsposi-
ton, is unworthy of his profession. BY
so doing he writes himself outside of the
pale of fairness and common decency.
Heis capable of STOPPING to anything, no
matter how low or contemplate. We
can overlook simple misstatement of
facts through ignorance, but deliber-
ate suppression of facts, when the facts
are we'll known, is method of falsifica-
ton that comparatively few men would
resort to. We were not willing to class
ify any member of the fraternity in
this class, until compelled to do so by
the stern necessity of events.
The editor of the Ledger is not in
the habit of parading his acts through
the columns of this paper. He has
never made it the medium of self-toot-
ing. No self-laudation of anything he
has done, or attempted to do, has ever
appeared in the Ledger under his
management. He is not ashamed of
any act performed in the discharge of
his duty as citizen, and is always
prepared to give solid reasons for his
conduct when necessary, but never has,
and never will. volunteer the justifica-
tion. He was on the Schell jury, and
he did hang that jury for conviction.
against II for acquittal He did sup
press that information in reporting the
case, from the simple motive of not de-
string publicity himself. He has no
apologies to make for so voting. The
statement of the case as published in
the Ledger was prompted by desire
to place the verdict of the majority in
favorable light by showing the ex-
tenuating circumstances, without sup
pressing the main facts. But in the
Echos garbled report the main facts
are wilfully omitted. They are given
in the same item as follows:
On the 22d of July COW was shot in
the hind quarters, breaking the left
leg. 1t was found by one of the stock
| men in helpless condition, and shot
by Andrews four days afterward to put
it out of misery. Defendant did not
deny shooting the animal, but claimed
that he had to do it to protect his
property. The shooting was establish
ed by three witnesses, to whom he ad-
mitted the act.
Now why were the above facts left
out of the Echo's article; if not from
Interior motives, for the purpose OF
placing the writer in false light before
his readers. The offense charged was
shooting COW. He admitted it. 1t
was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only that, but the shooter knew
the animal was crippled and unable to
rise. He said so in his testimony. And
he told no one about it, He allowed it
to lie where it was shot, without food
or water for four days, until some one
in the spirit of humanity came along
and reported it to the owner, who shot
it to put it out of misery. To put the
seal of approval upon such cruelty to a
dumb brute by a verdict of acquittal is
not according to the writer's idea oi
the duty of a juror, sworn to try the
case according to the law and evidence.
1t does not chime in with his views ol
| the protection of mans property
rights through the process of the law
| The writer's vote was, on the final bal
lot, the only one cast that prevented
the accused from being turned loose {
justified man. We have no apologies
to make for refusing to encourage him,
Or any one else, in taking the law into
his own hands. If such proceedings
are to go unpunished, what is to become
of the stockraising industry, which
figures so prominently in the interests
of Amador county. If lawlessness-wt
might say inhumanity and brutality
of this stripe is to be pandered to by
a jury, even granting from sympa
thetic motives, what enterprise is safe
We voted for guilty, with recon-
mendation for mercy. Had there been
HOO against us instead of II, our vote
would still have been the same-a
barrier against the undermining of the
fabric of law and order by telling him
officially that he acted right when ht
shot that COW. Stockraising is one Of
the leading industries of the valley sec
tion. Wonder how the cattle mon will
feel when they see lawlessness of this
character upheld by their local paper
AS one stOckman told the writer, speak
ing of this very matter, 'Is it not
about time to quit business, when the
simple protection of the law is denied. -
| We repret tn DuhliSh tbeSa tbinrc ,,,t
we do not propose to remain silent