The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1904-06-03

plainly IN passing on the petition, what
it thought Of it and that it was not
proper for the court to take up one line
Of cffense and not ali others, and since
they set out in their petition that they
were DESTROYS only of taking up features
that would be, they hoped, political,
they found themselves without a friend
at court, but not that the court would
not take extraordinary measures to
meet extraordinary occasions. Follow
ing the action of the court on the petit
ton, they again show their utter CON
tempt of court and law by resorting to
q newspaper, hostile to anything,
whether it be law or not, that does not
come under its dictates. In that paper
they proceed to publish afidavits, de-
signed to reflect upon the court and its
officers, especially the grand jury and
the sheriff and his deputies. They set
up a case, which is pronounced by grand
jurors as entirely different from That
they laid before the grand jury, and
these grand jurors have just ~ good a
reputation for truth and veracity az
they have.
The fact that they proceed to get up
a chain OF a,nuavits all on the same sub.
ject is sufficient evidence that a con.
spiracy had been formed for the purpose
Of working the grand jury to accom-
plish their ends. The manner in which
they hung around the grand jury room
in lunches until they succeeded in gett-
ing in. and also tine manner in which
they waited to hear the grand imry's
report and also the bitter disappoint-
ment they felt, when they learned they
had failed to make a tool OF that body
Of men, numbering sixteen, and sworn
to do their duty, all constitute chain
OF evidence OF the fact that they had
gotten their heads together for the pur.
pose of using the courts OF this county
to further their own political ambition.
They have pursued course that GER
tainly appeals to the people as demand
ing the attention OF grand jury,
whether it be special or regular
In reference to the aiidnvits they pub
fish. may we not call attention to the
fact that at the instance of one of that
gang and one of its leaders at that a
man, who had a perfect right to vote
his name was james Gabbert-was ar.
rested and taken before a magistrate be-
cause he went to vote and WAS cfalleng.
ed. This man would do the proper thing
to bring damage suit for false arrest
Also in the matter of n man named
George Gabbert, who Is charged with
voting here, it is but proper to say they
want to prosecute him because his name
is such. Some one else says a man by
the same name voted at Salem Ii that
Is evidence that warrants an Indictment
| why is DR.. ]. b. Smith not under indict.
ment? Ii he voted at all. it must have
I been in the third ward of this city, and
/ yet J. B. Smith voted in the fifth ward,
and J. B. Smith voted in another ward
or two of the city. The same is true
with other persons.
! Charles \. Horrors affidavit as pub
+ lished in connection with the Gabbcrt in
/ cident doe%snot in any way connect aim
with the man by the same name, who Is
said to have voted in Salem. Nor does
any other affidavit in that connection
There is no case there. There was moth
ing that warranted the grand jury in
indicting either the Salem Gabbert or
tue Clarksburg Gabbert for the reason
that, according to those aiIids--.s. moth
ing was laid before the grand jury to
show that they were not entitled to
/ vote in their respective towns. j. Hor-
I nor Davis s7wears that he knows Cab.
bert voted here. Charles 4. Hornor
swears to the same thing, but neither
oil them pretend, to tell the grand jury
that George Gabbert did not have a
right to vote here. II. L. Towles shows
py his testimony that man named
George Gabbert voted in Salem, but he
does not say that man was an illegal
voter. Now that is the Gabbcrt case,
and it j, up to them to tell which Cab,
bert they wanted the graad Jury to in.
dict and for what? Ii they wanted any
old fellow named Gabbcrt indicted then
they should have shown the grand jury
that the man they wanted indicted was
guilty. Under such circumstance. and
such evidence. IS we said before. there
is no reason why DIR. j. b. Smith should
not be indicted. since ]. p. Smith voted
in another ward than thar in which DR.
j. 7. Smith lives.
IN rae case ot the coi5rel fellow, tie
atIiirril themselves show that there
va, not sufficient evidence to warrant
the sraal jury in returning an indict.
meat for the reason that the atlantis arc
not certain A. 10 tie fellows name and
try 81 cover ~ their uncertainty by call